I am an SCI member. I get the newspaper they send. It usually has a couple of pages of hunt reports that I read. I am done!
The editing and quality of those reports is pathetic compared to AR's hunt reports. I have yet to see one that was negative and yet to see one that was more than 75 words of platitudes.

Am I the Lone Ranger on this or do think they are waste of ink and newsprint as well?

I am a member of SCI for a number of reasons, but the hunt report is certainly not one of them.

Yes they are pretty lame and no encouragement to post negative reports. Shame - very few members send them in anyhow... imagine the thousands they would get if everyone did!

Hunting Report ones are better.. and AR reports are the best.

Anyone who puts any real effort into the report is writing an article for the Magazine, not writing a hunt report.

I have thought about submitting something for the magazine, but its a heck of a lot easier to write up something here...

I haven't had a negative hunt to report. I wonder if some of our members with bad hunts ever tried to submit one? Who knows if they edit them, although I suspect they do.

i sent in a negative one about 6-7 years ago. it never appeared. the outfitter was a pretty big auction donor( and is now out of business- wonder why?)

Let me state clearly - I am an SCI member and supporter. I do not support everything they do but I support the mission.

As far as - Being First for Hunters - as they say the TV show and elsewhere - I would suggest they publish complete, accurate, positive/negative hunt reports submitted by members. These same members submit trophies to be measured and to earn awards - why not put the same effort into hunt reports?

I see hunt reports as something different from what you see on the paid service (Hunting Reports). Just report the facts, and let the readers decide on the result.

I stopped reading hunt reports published in SCI publications years ago.

After I had read a number of them in Safari Magazine, which left no doubt in my mind that they were written by the same individual.

He made them sound like those so called "news reports" published by the tabloids.

Also, I have read in some older books written by PHs in Africa, where some of the higher echlons of the SCI trophy recepients - and involved in SCI management - have used illegal means of obtaining their tropies.

Like using dogs and hunting at night, where neither of these was legal.

Hunt Reports posted on AR are written by the individual who was involved in the hunt.

Non of us running AR ever gets involved in it.

And that is how it should be.

A few years ago I had a "big-shot" client from SCI for Lion. He told me very clearly that he would not even aim at an animal that was not SCI Gold. That included bait-animals. Long story short. The lion walked in and I immediately told him to shoot because I could see that this male would score well into Gold.
He refused the shot and said "But it has no mane" That is how I knew that it would score but he wanted mane instead of the Gold. Confusing to say the least. I am not a supporter of the tape-measure hunts but do realize that it is very important to some clients and therefore will keep trying for the best.

I'm a member and supporter of SCI and it's mission. SCI isn't perfect and there is room for improvement, but what large organization is without fault? I participate on the Chapter level as a Board Director because I try to put forth an effort to make it better, instead of criticizing others efforts from the sidelines. That's pretty easy to do!

I don't think the SCI hunting reports are very valuable however. But there is a difference between not posting negative reports and posting false positive reports, at least IMO.

I find "The Hunting Report" to be largely lacking in "negative" reports also. Maybe it's a liability issue. I don't know. But as long as the reports are not false, I suppose the positive reports that are posted have some value. If lies are being told, that would certainly be an issue worth taking them to task over.

The AR hunting reports have the most credibility IMO. In many instances, we have the opportunity to "know" the posters' from the on line reputation they have developed over time with this site. This lends credibility in the event of a negative report. This "knowledge" of the posters' reputation is something that SCI and The Hunting Report can't compete with and is possibly a contributing factor discouraging the publishing of negative reports.

Case in point, our very own Allgone. Remember his fiasco? His very first post on AR was a negative hunt report. There were certainly a lot of issues that eventually came to light, but his participation in bribing a game scout upon wounding and losing a Buffalo, certainly cast a question over the validity of the overall report IMO. Publishing AG's negative report could have created serious issues of slander once this little tidbit of info was found out. Without the give and take and opportunity to fully explore the events that took place on his hunt, we would have been left with a negative report that was lacking material facts, but yet soiled the outfitter's reputation.

quote:

Originally posted by Fritz Rabe:
A few years ago I had a "big-shot" client from SCI for Lion. He told me very clearly that he would not even aim at an animal that was not SCI Gold. That included bait-animals. Long story short. The lion walked in and I immediately told him to shoot because I could see that this male would score well into Gold.
He refused the shot and said "But it has no mane" That is how I knew that it would score but he wanted mane instead of the Gold. Confusing to say the least. I am not a supporter of the tape-measure hunts but do realize that it is very important to some clients and therefore will keep trying for the best.

You get that kind of thing on high-fence lion hunts I guess!!

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
i sent in a negative one about 6-7 years ago. it never appeared. the outfitter was a pretty big auction donor( and is now out of business- wonder why?)

Which outfitter?? How did you get mixed-up with them?

quote:

Originally posted by Fritz Rabe:
A few years ago I had a "big-shot" client from SCI for Lion. He told me very clearly that he would not even aim at an animal that was not SCI Gold. That included bait-animals. Long story short. The lion walked in and I immediately told him to shoot because I could see that this male would score well into Gold.
He refused the shot and said "But it has no mane"

That must make you want to pull your hair out! Sounds like the type of guy who would order the most tender and rare steak in a five star restaurant and then complain that it's just a bit too thin. Some folks are just never going to be satisfied.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by Fritz Rabe:
A few years ago I had a "big-shot" client from SCI for Lion. He told me very clearly that he would not even aim at an animal that was not SCI Gold. That included bait-animals. Long story short. The lion walked in and I immediately told him to shoot because I could see that this male would score well into Gold.
He refused the shot and said "But it has no mane" That is how I knew that it would score but he wanted mane instead of the Gold. Confusing to say the least. I am not a supporter of the tape-measure hunts but do realize that it is very important to some clients and therefore will keep trying for the best.

You get that kind of thing on high-fence lion hunts I guess!!

Please show me where in my post was it said that the hunt was fenced or even in South Africa. Do not assume that it was just because you see that I live in SA. We all know what assume stands for.

So was it in RSA??

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
So was it in RSA??

The hunt took place in 2005 in the Namwala GMA in Zambia.

OK - do you normally talk about SCI scores when you are looking at a wild lion?? That is what threw me really...

I did not even think about it. Read my previous post carefully - I was told by the client before the hunt even started that that was what he wanted and how he does things.

Fritz,

Maybe something was just lost in translation the way you phrased the hunt taking place...

quote:

Please show me where in my post was it said that the hunt was fenced

quote:

The lion walked in

Saying "the lion walked in" certainly gives the impression of an animal in an enclosure.

Huh?, "the lion walked in". All Lion I have ever encountered and seen on hunting shows have "walked in". Some may have trotted, but most have walked. Curious as to how a Lion" walking in" would be a hint he was in a high fence area?

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

quote:

Originally posted by opus72:
Fritz,

Maybe something was just lost in translation the way you phrased the hunt taking place...

quote:

Please show me where in my post was it said that the hunt was fenced

quote:

The lion walked in

Saying "the lion walked in" certainly gives the impression of an animal in an enclosure.

I have conducted a lot of Lion hunts over 20 years of hunting professionally in 3 countries and another 3 years as an appy. I have never seen a lion fly,swim,skydive or driven into a bait.
Sorry guys. I seem to miss something here. I apologise for that.

Fritz

Seriously, are you telling me that you can tell if a lion has a 25" skull or a 26" skull by looking at its mane? I assume in low light ' hunting ' conditions!!!!!

If you can I suggest getting hold of a few of the AR posters and perhaps you can help formulate a new ' aging method' which may help save the African lion.

No Martin I do not. Never had and never even insinuated it. READ MY POST! The lion had NO, ZERO, NIKS, F---ALL mane. It was a "mane-less" lion. They do exist. Trust me. Just go the the North of Cameroon and you will see a few.

Wow guys! What is wrong with you? Can you not read what I type?

Sorry! Don't even bother to answer. I am not on the same wavelength as you lot.

Not to speak for Fritz, but his point is probably that he could see that the lion was a big cat with a big head and thus was confident that it would score high. That doesn't have anything to do with correlating head size to mane quality.

quote:

Originally posted by sandyhunter:
Not to speak for Fritz, but his point is probably that he could see that the lion was a big cat with a big head and thus was confident that it would score high. That doesn't have anything to do with correlating head size to mane quality.

Don't worry Sandy. I can see why some of these guys are PH's. They would make crappy Auditors because they can't read.

quote:

"But it has no mane" That is how I knew that it would score but he wanted mane instead of the Gold.

Sorry Fritz , I might be reading this wrong but your post says you new it would score because of the lack of mane does it not ,,,,

This I can answer as it is a good question.
A lion is scored on his scull. Because he had no mane and looked like a jumbo size Lioness I could see his head clearly with no hair in the way. He was very old and was a loner as his tracks were the only ones at and near the bait for a few days. He did have a huge head on him and on that and that alone I said to the client that he must take the shot. I shall never know just how well he scored because he was not shot.

quote:

If you can I suggest getting hold of a few of the AR posters and perhaps you can help formulate a new ' aging method' which may help save the African lion.

quote:

Originally posted by Fritz Rabe:
No Martin I do not. Never had and never even insinuated it. READ MY POST! The lion had NO, ZERO, NIKS, F---ALL mane. It was a "mane-less" lion. They do exist. Trust me. Just go the the North of Cameroon and you will see a few.

Wow guys! What is wrong with you? Can you not read what I type?

Sorry! Don't even bother to answer. I am not on the same wavelength as you lot.

Fritz,
Many people take one snippet of a post and isolate it for comment without taking it in the context of what is written. It's a very common internet method of arguing.

Hey Fritz
Dont worry mate, There is an ANTI- South Africa contingent out here. Lots to say about All of us just because of what a small few have done.
chin up bugger - what goes around comes around

Dave , All we ( North of the Limpopo) are asking you ( South of the Limpopo ) is to help us weed out the " small few " name and shame them do what ever you feel is right , then there would not be an Anti South African contingent out there , lets keep it legal in the interest of ethical fair chase hunting , I am sure you can see where we are coming from ,,

Guys,
I think the purpose of the SCI hunt reports should be to report good/bad/indifferent experiences. We do not need SCI to be the hunt police.

I slam SCI regularly as I think the concept of buying your own awards is bizarre. I further think that if you are "SCI - for Hunters" then the org should stand for the highest ethics as does the Boone And Crockett Club.

With that premise - use the hunt reports to offer reports on huntsj- with details - with positive and negative. Right now it is just advertising for the the agent or outfitter as nothing is really said.

quote:

Originally posted by dogcat:
Guys,
I think the purpose of the SCI hunt reports should be to report good/bad/indifferent experiences. We do not need SCI to be the hunt police.

I slam SCI regularly as I think the concept of buying your own awards is bizarre. I further think that if you are "SCI - for Hunters" then the org should stand for the highest ethics as does the Boone And Crockett Club.

The buying the awards sounds a little kinky for sure ... but it is a hunting club, who is going to pay for the awards?? All the other members!! Those members who wish to participate in the awards programme contribut to those awards by paying for their entries and for their trophies/whatever if they want them. In an organisation that size - it couldnt be much fairer. I suppose they could pay for the awards programme out of funds raised from donations (general revenue?) but then that would have even more members up-in-arms!!

How else do you propose these awards be funded??

Some may say the whole awards programme should go - well the record book and award programme are one of the mechanisms that helps drive members to new and more destinations and species ... and that is a win-win for all concerned ... animals and conservation included!!

I think that one of the weirdest things about SCI is the way the organization attempts to make hunting into some kind of competitive sport. And offers "awards" for "achievements" in hunting that the "players" are eligible to purchase.

As I say, weird.

As for the hunt reports, I agree that they're not very good or useful at all. And virtually never negative or critical, as that seems to be against the "feel good" focus of the publication.

The articles are sometimes good, but generally not the equal of other good hunting publications, such as Sports Afield, African Hunting Gazette or Sporting Classics.

Still, as a life member, I do support the mission, as dogcat says.

Now, if they adopted Saeed's notion of an "Outer Circle" - for particularly bad, strange or unusual hunting "achievements," I might feel differently about the whole competition thing.

I think we should propose an Outer Circle as you suggest Mike. That would solve an issue or two.

Better yet, we could have an Outer Circle on AR...... for trolls and bad outfits.

Good day, Gents.
In a word, it's all about MONEY. Years ago SCI members wore a sash with pins representing the animals they shot. A meeting was held to determine how to raise more funds and the result was the slams, circles, diamond awards, etc... with that was the SCI record book allowed very small animals to be included--for a price, of course. Their logo should read: "SCI first for SCI, hunter's second." Over the years I became so personally disgusted with the canned hunts, hunt reports that were unrealistically positive (to keep revenue from outfitters), and stories from the wealthy few that can kill all of the wild sheep in a month, I requested SCI to stop sending me both the newspaper and the magazine. I am still a member although I really don't know why--I go to Dallas and avoid SCI's Reno Las Vegas shows. I suggest talking to some vendors at the SCI show and ask them about SCI's attitude toward the vendors as to money is concerned. Check out the price of table and carpet rentals!! A friend bought his table an carpet and rents a storage locker for 30$ a month and saves thousands. While SCI may do some good as to publicity and telling the populace about hunting, I personally feel SCI is the reason for canned hunts and the price of hunting going as high as it has. Hunting has become a competitive sport with who gets the most and the biggest in the least amount of time gets the highest reward. I have spoken to countless hunters who are after the North American 29 or the little 7 or this slam or that circle. They never tell me of the challenge of the stalk, only how the critter measured. And, I have seen adults throw childish tantrums when their kudu as 1/2" smaller than the PH thought it was. The days of Teddy Roosevelt and Elgin Gates are gone forever. Instant gratification. Take a shooting rest with a rifle vise to the plains, shoot a pronghorn at 500 yards, and get in the "book" but don't learn how to track and hunt. Look at the number of high fence guaranteed hunting areas exist. Visit the Sanctuary at the next SCI show--one day at the ranch and you can shoot any size you wish--tame deer with big antlers command a big price, and get in the "book" a "circle" a "slam" a "diamond award" again, for a price.
To conclude my rant, many of my teacher friends are very opposed to hunting. Some are members of PETA. Low life, all of them, but one told me something that made some sense. They want to go to the SCI convention in 2013 and secretly video the guaranteed hunts and high fence hunts and to public with their findings. I predict if they do this it will make our passion viewed very poorly in the eye of the public--even more so than it already is.
Cheers all,
Cal

thanks for you comments.
Coming from a guy as respected as you means a lot.
I hope more will chime in.

quote:

Originally posted by cal pappas:
Good day, Gents.
In a word, it's all about MONEY. Years ago SCI members wore a sash with pins representing the animals they shot. A meeting was held to determine how to raise more funds and the result was the slams, circles, diamond awards, etc... with that was the SCI record book allowed very small animals to be included--for a price, of course. Their logo should read: "SCI first for SCI, hunter's second." Over the years I became so personally disgusted with the canned hunts, hunt reports that were unrealistically positive (to keep revenue from outfitters), and stories from the wealthy few that can kill all of the wild sheep in a month, I requested SCI to stop sending me both the newspaper and the magazine. I am still a member although I really don't know why--I go to Dallas and avoid SCI's Reno Las Vegas shows. I suggest talking to some vendors at the SCI show and ask them about SCI's attitude toward the vendors as to money is concerned. Check out the price of table and carpet rentals!! A friend bought his table an carpet and rents a storage locker for 30$ a month and saves thousands. While SCI may do some good as to publicity and telling the populace about hunting, I personally feel SCI is the reason for canned hunts and the price of hunting going as high as it has. Hunting has become a competitive sport with who gets the most and the biggest in the least amount of time gets the highest reward. I have spoken to countless hunters who are after the North American 29 or the little 7 or this slam or that circle. They never tell me of the challenge of the stalk, only how the critter measured. And, I have seen adults throw childish tantrums when their kudu as 1/2" smaller than the PH thought it was. The days of Teddy Roosevelt and Elgin Gates are gone forever. Instant gratification. Take a shooting rest with a rifle vise to the plains, shoot a pronghorn at 500 yards, and get in the "book" but don't learn how to track and hunt. Look at the number of high fence guaranteed hunting areas exist. Visit the Sanctuary at the next SCI show--one day at the ranch and you can shoot any size you wish--tame deer with big antlers command a big price, and get in the "book" a "circle" a "slam" a "diamond award" again, for a price.
To conclude my rant, many of my teacher friends are very opposed to hunting. Some are members of PETA. Low life, all of them, but one told me something that made some sense. They want to go to the SCI convention in 2013 and secretly video the guaranteed hunts and high fence hunts and to public with their findings. I predict if they do this it will make our passion viewed very poorly in the eye of the public--even more so than it already is.
Cheers all,
Cal

Great post Cal. I couldn't agree more. I normally don't comment on how people choose to hunt but I'm going to make an exception now. Too many hunters are chasing inches and awards that they have become meaningless. If on my first safari 8 out of my 9 animals would make the SCI book then the standards are too low. Today on television I watched an outfitter brag that "If it is legal we can do it. You can shoot from the car, you can shoot at night, etc." Later on in the episode I watched an young able bodied man shoot a blesbok from the back of the truck. If this is what is deemed acceptable or even desirable we need to seriously rethink our priorities.

I joined SCI this year simply to be able to go to the convention. If it wasn't for the convention I would not have joined. I decided that the time had come for me to see the "greatest hunting show on the planet." While I met a few genuinely interesting people I met more of the boorish type. The displays were great and the taxidermy awesome but the one upmanship and chest thumping got on my nerves.

I attended an auction (and even won one) but I couldn't for the life of me believe that trips to Africa were going for less than 5 day elk hunts in the Rockies. I have done both (I didn't pay for the elk hunt) and to me Africa wins hands down. To each their own but I just don't get it.

I could go on and on but this post was cathartic for me. I just had to get it out.

Well all I can say is this...

People don't talk about football teams being equal and loving someone just throw the football. They talk about games won and loss...and with everything human nature is competition. Everything on this planet that is living, is in constant competition. Whether we like it or not.

SO why is anyone surprised about people wanting to shoot the biggest trophy? I don't know anyone who sets out to shoot the smallest? (Tiny ten hunters excluded! hahah)

I don't hunt for anyone else...but I sure do razz my friends when I get a bigger whatever... and I assure you, they do the same! It's all in good fun!

The record book brings in tons of money to SCI...and they use that money for a myriad of projects. Including scientific research...I know about this first hand.

And the idea that SCI record book led to High fences...is lunacy!!! I think the idea you're looking for is making a living? Control and management? Everyone wants to make money, and I don't think anyone with sense can argue that! Many species would be gone without high fences...and the lands wouldn't produce the revenue to maintain the property or the wildlife that resides there.

Many people who have enjoyed the experience of Safari, would never have had the chance, had high fences not existed. Think of all the high-fence places that exist...and how many hunters they host...the cost is usually cheaper than free range areas. Also, if you do your research, there are scientific published articles in research journals that prove the amount of game in southern Africa has increased tremendously due to the introduction of high fenced operations. Tell me that's a bad thing!!!!

As far as hunting reports...90% are up for interpretation. My opinion of great service probably differs from some...who knows. I hope that my reports are informative and allow readers make judgements that best fit their needs. One reason you won't see SCI printing negative reports is liability and proof...he said/she said crap.

So we can all retreat to the cloak of the internet to post our negative positions...but SCI won't be joining us for understandable reasons.

The notion that SCI has driven the price of hunting up is again, not a well thought out statement! Not trying to be rude Cal...but seriously???? How about, land prices, petrol, food, and oh yeah everything on the planet being more expensive than it used to be! You can't buy anything for what it used to cost in the "good Ol days"!!!! Hunting is a very expensive sport...and it will continue to increase! SCI has no effect on this...supply and demand...don't remember seeing SCI listed anywhere in an economics books?

As far as vendors at SCI...if they don't like it, they can surely leave...I know plenty of vendors who would love an extra booth space to add...I love people who take up for complaining vendors, who seem to always be at the show! If it's so terrible, take your ball and go home! Anyone with any sense realizes that if you're not at SCI, you are not in the game. (something tells me I'm going to hear about this statment) But hey these are just my opinions right...logical, well thought out, and not based on emotion.

Oryx

Your absolutely right. How could anyone criticize the one true Faith.

quote:

Originally posted by SG Olds:
Oryx

Your absolutely right. How could anyone criticize the one true Faith.

absolutely- everyone knows SCI is the only reason hunting still exists-NOT!!! damn good post, Cal. i can't wait to start my Inner Circle Quest for the World's RODENT Ring( look out capybara, muskrat, cane rat, etc.- here i come!)