SCI Questions and Suggestions - Make Them Here!

[Paul Babaz]

My motivation to list in the SCI record books has always been to share the data with other hunters.
It is a powerful research tool.
As such, I would like to see the "books" opened to anonymous listings from club membership.
The club would still get their $35 (or whatever the amount is now) per listing, the animal is honored, and the data shared, without the implied assumption that the listing is just to honor the hunter.

The listings and process would stay exactly the same as it is now, but with the option for the hunter to have their name listed as "Anonymous"

Thank you for your consideration.

@ThomasBeaham Thomas, thank you for this suggestion as this is something that was brought up before and record book department is looking into having anonymous entries, to provide the taxonomic information for those who don't want to be listed for whatever their reasons. Thanks!

 

[Paul Babaz]

Interested yes. However, I live in Mandeville over 2+ hours away

@Rock375 it's worth the drive to meet some great folks in the Louisana chapter!

 

[jeff]

@jeff I appreciate the suggestion, but the record book is considered a member benefit, just offhand, I don't think I would oppose allowing record book entries into the record book, but I have never looked into this or recall any discussion of it. Perhaps the record book department could look into this. I don't know if the price of an SCI membership is a big deterrent, as I pay more to be a member of the huntinfool, but perhaps we should look into your suggestion.

As a P&Y measurer I'm often the first contact hunters have with the organization and the club gets exposure and some decide to join, as with their first entry they get a reduced membership, but many just pay the recording fee but have learned about the organization and since they themselves now have a entry they are much more likely to support the organization.

 

[Paul Babaz]

Ok, Gents, I appreciate the comments and suggestions but I have been on here longer then I planned, but I didn't want to go and not address everyone. Thank you all for the part you contribute to our community and lifestyle! On different note, I have apparantly been called out on another forum, so I can't pass up the opportunity to jump in with both feet so I will have to get on there in the next few days as it appears I have been called everything except a ________! Especially interesting when I've never met the keyboard warrior or warriors who talk a big game, but I have no idea what they do or haven't done for the hunting community, conservation, or anything else they think they are an authority on. The world is fully of those who do and those who complain, I choose to be the former... right wrong or indifferent, I'm making an effort! Since, I'm feeling philosophical, I'll leave you with a quote by my personal hero who started it all, so we can all enjoy the fruits of his labor. It pretty much sums up how I feel about subject better then I ever could say...

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.” Theodore Roosevelt

 

[Badger Matt]

Those are two really interesting ideas. I can tell you that in regard to our Convention our exhibitors like the idea that it's a for members-only show because they get serious buyers coming through, as opposed to a lot of tire-kickers. But it's the greatest hunting show on earth and if people could see it somehow they might get really interested in the whole experience.

I'll open discussion on both ideas and let's see where it goes. Thanks!

Rick Parsons, CEO

Consider having one day at the Convention for "guests" as well. I attended as a member in 2014 and it was amazing. I left impressed.

 

[Tom Hawk]

@Tom Hawk Tom, I can't comment as really don't know. I don't participate in Rowland Ward (DSC's Book) either and not sure how they structure there record book.

The higher entry fee for non member entries was my idea, the 51% rule, I’ll let DSC explain

 

[UNT2007]

What is SCI doing to get president Trump to change his mind about African hunting and allow trophy importation again?

 

[IdaRam]

@IdaRam Sorry, I haven't been on the last several days, but family and my day job have kept me occupied. There is no question that SCI suffers from an image problem, and like it or not, for a long time this image was well deserved. This being said SCI of years past as evolved a great deal to one of the strongest voices for hunters in existence.

The trouble is, it's difficult to change perception sometimes. As an example, can you think back to when you were a kid and how you may have been perceived as a teenager? Speaking for myself, I would hate to think that people that know me know would still think of me as the same person I was when I was a kid. The point being we all grow up and hopefully become responsible adults. The same can be said for SCI, as we have certainly had our shares of challenges in leadership, etc. but I can say first hand from being involved in the organization for quite a while that a great deal has changed, but there will be those out there who simply don't want believe that the people in leadership positions now are different people than some of those from the past. It's a matter of actions, speaks louder than words, and if anyone who is an SCI member and actually paying attention, I really can't see how they can hold on to old perceptions. As I've said, SCI isn't perfect now, and it certainly wasn't perfect when it started, but I believe we've come a long way.

You mention the SCI chapter's which is near and dear to me as I got involved with SCI via my local chapter. SCI's chapters do incredible things, but we need the chapters to let us know what they are doing in order for us to let the rest of the world know. This varies from chapter to chapter, as chapters have their own leadership and some chapters are very active and some aren't as active, just as some chapters are quick to send along information about chapter projects, articles, photos, etc. for publication in the Monthly publication or the bi-monthly magazine. As an example, I received just saw a press release in regards to the Louisiana Acadiana Chapter in Lafayette, La (I grew up in New Iberia) because the Chapter, along with SCI Foundation, and HSUS (if you can believe that) put up the $ to offer a reward for information to apprehend the person who poached two Black bears. I just happen to see this news story, forwarded it on to the chapter folks I know and congratulated them and copied SCI's Director of Communication who jumped all over it and will run our own article and post links to the original story via social media. We had a bunch of chapters in Texas, who banded together to help the flood victims of Hurricane Harvey, again, this time one of the chapter President's reached out to be to let me know what they were doing, so I asked SCIF to help via SCIF's humanitarian services committee, and I wrote about it in our publications. The bottom line is, if your chapter or a chapter you know of is, doing something, then contact me or anyone and let us know as we'd love to spread the word! My local chapter is hosts hunts for wounded veterans and we always make sure we let folks know about these events, so please let SCI know what you all are doing! Point of interest Mike Burke who you all know on here, is a founding member of the Louisiana Acadiana chapter, which is how I met Mike.

Record book.... I always get a kick out of the comments about SCI leadership chasing awards, hunting accolades, etc. I will be the first to tell you that I don't have one record in the record book. I'm not knocking the record book nor am I knocking anyone who participates, but it's never been something I had a burning passion to do, but that's just me.

The "Blue Bird Slam", I will take full responsibility for this one. I do a bit of bird hunting and am always amazed when I meet fellow wingshooters and they tell me they don't belong to SCI because they aren't big game hunters, again the perception thing. My first response is, if you own a firearm, you should be an NRA member. Regardless of whether you are a collector of fine English sidelocks, or you are a competitive shooter and own AR's are Modern Sporting Rifles (MSR's), you should be an NRA member. If you are a hunter regardless of whether you hunt birds, small game, big game, etc. you should be an SCI Member. It's a simple as that. Ok, got off topic.... I have been big proponent of trying to bring in bird-hunters, so another hunting buddy, have always joked about creating a Quail Slam, as a lot of folks travel around to hunt the various species of quail, Bobwhite, Scaled, etc. The conversation morphed into actually creating some thing to attract the wingshooting community which is now Gamebirds of the World. So, I'll take full responsibility for this one. Paul

@IdaRam All great suggestions and things we are trying to work on, but not all chapters are as active as others, but I appreciate what they do as it takes time and not everyone has as much time as others. I appreciate what you are doing here and in your own chapter, thank you! I will say, if anyone sends in an article, it can just be an outline, and include lots of photos and the editorial staff can help draft the article for review before publishing. Speaking of time, I am running out as I've been on here a bit!

Paul, thank you for taking the time to reply so thoroughly to both of my posts. Your willingness to listen and engage in the discussion so openly on this public forum speaks volumes to your commitment to SCI, hunting and conservation. It is a breath of fresh air and very much appreciated! I believe you are making an important difference. Keep up the good work

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

@PHOENIX PHIL Thanks for the comment, and I will be brief as I am running out of time and have covered a lot of this in other posts. The name Safari Club International started out just that, as a club... a small group of folks who hunted internationally or the desire and means to do so back in the early 70's. Keeping in mind, back then and longer, there was no way for some one to go online, or go to a convention to book an international hunt because these means didn't exist. SCI has been credited with creating this market place for people to be able to book hunts, meet outfitters, etc. with the first convention. SCI was a spinoff by the founder from another elite hunting group that was just a very small group of like minded folks. From there Dallas Safari club who was part of SCI broke off and started their own organization as did Houston Safari Club. That's just a very brief history, but a history that folks still view today. If you attend convention or a chapter event, I think this image would evaporate pretty quickly. Keep in mind, wildlife conservation is one of SCIF's 3 mission, and SCIF does use the First For Wildlife tag line, which is fitting as they do the conservation work and SCI (501C4) does the advocacy, lobbying, etc. The two organizations are sepearate in that they have different boards and leadership albeit some overlap, but there is a symbiotic relationship in that one cannot survive without the other. As a 501C4, SCI can make a grant to SCIF (501C3) to fund the SCIF missions), and of course SCIF does their own fundraising as well. The conservation department of SCIF provides all the science that is needed for SCI to fufill it's mission when doing advocacy work at the science behind sustainable use conservation is instrumental is educating legislators who may not be hunters themselves. Thanks for being a member and speaking up!

Thanks for your reply and also your post to Saeed over at the other place!

I should have been a little more clear in my post. My concern regarding SCI's image aren't regarding my image of SCI, but others. Note that I fully agree that images or perhaps impressions aren't necessarily reflective of reality. The impressions may and are frequently totally wrong. To a degree however I think this can be controlled. More specifically my thoughts for why this is important:

Anti-Hunting Orgs
These groups of course ignore all of the positive work that SCI does for conservation. Instead they focus on the image of an uber rich guy getting off a private plane, murdering an animal to satisfy his bloodlust and desire to show everyone his manliness, then getting back onto a plane to head home. No one will ever be able to stop these groups from promoting those images. But is there something SCI and hunters as whole can do to combat this? I believe SCI can and to an extent is, but perhaps we can do more.

Non-Hunters
This is where just having the word "Club" in the organization's name has it's drawbacks. It immediately promotes a sense of exclusion. As such it feeds right into the image of the rich guy mentioned above. This in turn serves to make anti-hunters out of non-hunters. It even goes to serve making those okay with hunting when it's seen for meat, not okay with trophy hunting. Again back in the 1970's if the club was started as an exclusive entity, well so what? There was no or very little concern about the issues we face now. But today some 40 plus years since SCI's foundation, I believe it hurts SCI and hunting as a whole.

Average Hunters
By average I mean what I believe is the majority of hunters. Taking into account the whole body of hunters, we who travel beyond our country's borders to go hunting I believe are in the minority. I just spent a few days with my brother. He started hunting only about 10 years ago. He's your average deer/turkey/waterfowl hunter. He'd likely consider traveling out of state to hunt, but that's probably about as far as it will go with him. Nothing wrong with that. He is certainly aware of my travels to Africa, but he really doesn't know much about hunting in Africa. While I was there we had the opportunity to watch the film "Trophy" that I would guess you're familiar with. AH's own @Philip Glass was in this movie and I also believe he was recognized for it at an SCI function in Vegas this year. It was interesting to watch my brother's reactions to the movie and to discuss African hunting with him. It was definitely eye opening for him to hear the "if it pays it stays" argument and just how that applies in Africa. A concept that many Americans have never considered nor the reasons why it makes sense.

My point being that if it wasn't for me putting that movie on, he would've not likely been exposed to this. But he got it and he agreed with it. But again he's not likely to ever hunt in Africa as he was simply blown away at the thought of the kind of money that is being spent to do such a hunt. It's just not for him.

But if one of the goals is to drive more membership in SCI, I believe it's up to SCI to sell itself to my brother and other average hunters. Quite simply, SCI needs to be able to show what it's doing for all hunters and not just those rich guys in the "club." While my brother is just a local hunter, he is a member of Ducks Unlimited, so he's not averse to supporting hunting/conservation organizations.


I know in my posts I've not really offered much in the way of actions to improve SCI's image. I'm not a PR guy, far from it in reality. But maybe that's a place to start. If SCI has not already retained the services of a PR firm, perhaps it should. Define the image you want to convey, let the PR firm help with how to do that and be successful.

 

[sierraone]

Thanks for your reply and also your post to Saeed over at the other place!

I should have been a little more clear in my post. My concern regarding SCI's image aren't regarding my image of SCI, but others. Note that I fully agree that images or perhaps impressions aren't necessarily reflective of reality. The impressions may and are frequently totally wrong. To a degree however I think this can be controlled. More specifically my thoughts for why this is important:

Anti-Hunting Orgs
These groups of course ignore all of the positive work that SCI does for conservation. Instead they focus on the image of an uber rich guy getting off a private plane, murdering an animal to satisfy his bloodlust and desire to show everyone his manliness, then getting back onto a plane to head home. No one will ever be able to stop these groups from promoting those images. But is there something SCI and hunters as whole can do to combat this? I believe SCI can and to an extent is, but perhaps we can do more.

Non-Hunters
This is where just having the word "Club" in the organization's name has it's drawbacks. It immediately promotes a sense of exclusion. As such it feeds right into the image of the rich guy mentioned above. This in turn serves to make anti-hunters out of non-hunters. It even goes to serve making those okay with hunting when it's seen for meat, not okay with trophy hunting. Again back in the 1970's if the club was started as an exclusive entity, well so what? There was no or very little concern about the issues we face now. But today some 40 plus years since SCI's foundation, I believe it hurts SCI and hunting as a whole.

Average Hunters
By average I mean what I believe is the majority of hunters. Taking into account the whole body of hunters, we who travel beyond our country's borders to go hunting I believe are in the minority. I just spent a few days with my brother. He started hunting only about 10 years ago. He's your average deer/turkey/waterfowl hunter. He'd likely consider traveling out of state to hunt, but that's probably about as far as it will go with him. Nothing wrong with that. He is certainly aware of my travels to Africa, but he really doesn't know much about hunting in Africa. While I was there we had the opportunity to watch the film "Trophy" that I would guess you're familiar with. AH's own @Philip Glass was in this movie and I also believe he was recognized for it at an SCI function in Vegas this year. It was interesting to watch my brother's reactions to the movie and to discuss African hunting with him. It was definitely eye opening for him to hear the "if it pays it stays" argument and just how that applies in Africa. A concept that many Americans have never considered nor the reasons why it makes sense.

My point being that if it wasn't for me putting that movie on, he would've not likely been exposed to this. But he got it and he agreed with it. But again he's not likely to ever hunt in Africa as he was simply blown away at the thought of the kind of money that is being spent to do such a hunt. It's just not for him.

But if one of the goals is to drive more membership in SCI, I believe it's up to SCI to sell itself to my brother and other average hunters. Quite simply, SCI needs to be able to show what it's doing for all hunters and not just those rich guys in the "club." While my brother is just a local hunter, he is a member of Ducks Unlimited, so he's not averse to supporting hunting/conservation organizations.


I know in my posts I've not really offered much in the way of actions to improve SCI's image. I'm not a PR guy, far from it in reality. But maybe that's a place to start. If SCI has not already retained the services of a PR firm, perhaps it should. Define the image you want to convey, let the PR firm help with how to do that and be successful.

Agree with Phil 100% about average hunters. Being from the south all my life, most people I know personally hunt to some degree, but it's ducks and deer. They have no interest in going to Africa. After saying that though, there are more shooters than there are hunters. That's where this whole AR/AK comes in. And I have never understood that.

 

[steve ahrenberg]

Just joined here. I saw the response over on the other site. Here's my perspective on this issue. I live in Phoenix. I served 11 years on the BOD of the Phoenix Chapter. I truly enjoyed those years and the work we did. What I didn't enjoy was the politics of it. I'm not sure there is an easy, one size fits all answer. You (we had)have 14 active board members, most of which are or were business owners or captains of industry. There were many egos in the room and everyone wanted things done in a certain way. This, in and of itself creates division. Board members form sub groups within the board to create voting blocks to get things done their way.

I'm sure things are done much the same way at the national level. Being in Phoenix and International HQ being in Tucson, we had many visits and our fundraiser usually had an Executive committee table.

The image problem is one of our own creation. I think social media is a tool we can use to either advance our sport...or kill our sport, we have to choose. Perhaps that ship has sailed? Not sure.

When traveling international sportsmen only number in the tens of thousands, I'm not sure there is a voice large enough to capture and keep the attention of any politician. Their only goal is to be re-elected. If standing up for hunting in Africa looks like a negative in votes, can you think of one single politician that would go against the grain? Just look at how President Trump reversed himself on the Elephant thing.

 

[Royal27]

Welcome @steve ahrenberg !

Great first post.

of it. I'm not sure there is an easy, one size fits all answer.

I'm sure... There isn't one easy answer. It's very complex both internally and externally. This is where I do think that both local and Grass Roots effort can and will make a difference.

he image problem is one of our own creation. I think social media is a tool we can use to either advance our sport...or kill our sport, we have to choose. Perhaps that ship has sailed? Not sure.

Totally agree and will take it even further. Our acceptance of popular Social Media will decide if we even have a fighting chance. We HAVE to embrace it. It's the battleground not of the future, but of now. Im sad everytime I see a FB post by SCI or DSC that's a good post and ends up with ten likes. Members have to embrace Social Media, the orgs setting up a page does no good if the members don't help.

Hunters that aren't willing to go on social media and be vocal aren't really in the fight and saying you "don't do social media" is no different than a hunter saying "I only hunt whitetail so Africa isn't my problem." It's extremely narrow and short sighted.

When traveling international sportsmen only number in the tens of thousands, I'm not sure there is a voice large enough to capture and keep the attention of any politician. Their only goal is to be re-elected. If standing up for hunting in Africa looks like a negative in votes, can you think of one single politician that would go against the grain? Just look at how President Trump reversed himself on the Elephant thing.

All comes back to Social Media and getting the word out, doesn't it? You're dead right, politicians don't care how an individual votes and especially a small group such as ours or the antis. But, win popular opinion as the antis have and suddenly they care. So I will argue that winning in Social Media is more important than winning in DC through lobbying even. Now don't anyone take that wrong as I'm supportive of the SCI move to DC and think it was the right thing to do, just not the only focus.

 

[wesheltonj]

Social Media is just another tool for progressives to use to amplify their agenda. Just try posting anything remotely conservative, and see the responses. Currently, progressives hate hunting, "trophy" hunting in particular. Most don't like hunting for food, but can at least understand that. I hate to say this, but we are too late to the game on social media, or any media for that matter.

 

[steve ahrenberg]

Welcome @steve ahrenberg !

Great first post.



I'm sure... There isn't one easy answer. It's very complex both internally and externally. This is where I do think that both local and Grass Roots effort can and will make a difference.



Totally agree and will take it even further. Our acceptance of popular Social Media will decide if we even have a fighting chance. We HAVE to embrace it. It's the battleground not of the future, but of now. Im sad everytime I see a FB post by SCI or DSC that's a good post and ends up with ten likes. Members have to embrace Social Media, the orgs setting up a page does no good if the members don't help.

Hunters that aren't willing to go on social media and be vocal aren't really in the fight and saying you "don't do social media" is no different than a hunter saying "I only hunt whitetail so Africa isn't my problem." It's extremely narrow and short sighted.



All comes back to Social Media and getting the word out, doesn't it? You're dead right, politicians don't care how an individual votes and especially a small group such as ours or the antis. But, win popular opinion as the antis have and suddenly they care. So I will argue that winning in Social Media is more important than winning in DC through lobbying even. Now don't anyone take that wrong as I'm supportive of the SCI move to DC and think it was the right thing to do, just not the only focus.

Social Media used incorrectly can be a huge detriment. I come from the camp that posting kill shots on public places only fuels the emotions of a well organized and funded opposition. Some, see it as "hiding" I see it as prudent. Conversely, should we use it as a positive and to control our message. We as a demographic, both hunters and the shooting sports have far too long allowed the opposition to define us. We need to be proactive and define ourselves.

 

[Royal27]

Social Media used incorrectly can be a huge detriment. I come from the camp that posting kill shots on public places only fuels the emotions of a well organized and funded opposition. Some, see it as "hiding" I see it as prudent. Conversely, should we use it as a positive and to control our message. We as a demographic, both hunters and the shooting sports have far too long allowed the opposition to define us. We need to be proactive and define ourselves.

We are in agreement Sir. Like any tool SM must certainly be used properly.

 

[Wheels]

Just joined here. I saw the response over on the other site. Here's my perspective on this issue. I live in Phoenix. I served 11 years on the BOD of the Phoenix Chapter. I truly enjoyed those years and the work we did. What I didn't enjoy was the politics of it. I'm not sure there is an easy, one size fits all answer. You (we had)have 14 active board members, most of which are or were business owners or captains of industry. There were many egos in the room and everyone wanted things done in a certain way. This, in and of itself creates division. Board members form sub groups within the board to create voting blocks to get things done their way.

I'm sure things are done much the same way at the national level. Being in Phoenix and International HQ being in Tucson, we had many visits and our fundraiser usually had an Executive committee table.

The image problem is one of our own creation. I think social media is a tool we can use to either advance our sport...or kill our sport, we have to choose. Perhaps that ship has sailed? Not sure.

When traveling international sportsmen only number in the tens of thousands, I'm not sure there is a voice large enough to capture and keep the attention of any politician. Their only goal is to be re-elected. If standing up for hunting in Africa looks like a negative in votes, can you think of one single politician that would go against the grain? Just look at how President Trump reversed himself on the Elephant thing.

Welcome to AH.

 

[IdaRam]

Hello and welcome @steve ahrenberg

 

[Heeler75]

What is SCI doing to get president Trump to change his mind about African hunting and allow trophy importation again?

That ship has sailed and nothing will be done until 2021. An early press release before the formal announcement helped 'fish-head' that.

 

[Rick Parsons]

Folks,

Sorry to have been off this site for a while, but this has been an exceptionally busy week at SCI.

Most of you should be aware that the US Fish and Wildlife Service posted a memo to their website late in the evening on March 1 saying, essentially, that they were going to start handling import permit applications for elephant trophies and other species. The memo was complicated and we allowed ourselves a day to figure out what it meant in the context of the SCI/NRA lawsuit over the Obama Administration freeze on a series of permits. The media saw this memo too and it wasn't long before our phones and emails were buzzing for requests for our view on this.

We have taken the position that this is a positive step forward. Previously, consideration of entire groups of trophy import permit applications was simply out of the question. Now the door is open.

The Service's memo deals with some legal questions about their ability to issue permits. It also makes it clear that the Service has good information from Zambia and Zimbabwe that supports what we know to be true -- elephant hunting is well-managed in many places and it makes a very important contribution to elephant conservation, including keeping elephant poaching down. The Service has now allowed itself to consider that information in looking at individual permits. That is progress.

For many years, through many Administrations, we have leaned on the government to open their eyes and their ears to the facts on the ground and to talk to their counterparts in Africa who have the responsibility to deal with elephant, lion and leopard problems for the people who live there. The Fish and Wildlife Service is demonstrating that they are doing that.

Of course some people in the media just don't like the fact that we hunt elephants, or anything else for that matter. So while we have been thanking the Service for having an open mind we have been also dealing with some people's distaste for hunting.

A week from tomorrow, Secretary Zinke's new International Wildlife Conservation Council meets for the first time. Our President, Paul Babaz, is a member of the IWCC and of course he will be at the meeting. I will also be there as an observer. I expect that this will sharpen the media's interest in the elephant trophy imports and similar issues.

Rick Parsons, CEO
SCI

 

[Royal27]

Thanks for the update @Rick Parsons.

I do hope this is positive news, and at the very least it's not openly negative.

I know a lot of people are not happy with the "case by case" piece of this. Personally though, I don't have a problem with it. As hunters we like to tell people that elephant can't be looked at wholistically across Africa, and it can't. Well, this position certainly supports a surgical approach!

We have taken the position that this is a positive step forward. Previously, consideration of entire groups of trophy import permit applications was simply out of the question. Now the door is open.

You know doubt know much that isn't public and much more than I do, and I sure hope you're right. I'm still of the position that this is simply not bad news, until proven otherwise. Proof would be a permit approved from Zimbabwe, or Zambia. Time will tell....

A week from tomorrow, Secretary Zinke's new International Wildlife Conservation Council meets for the first time. Our President, Paul Babaz, is a member of the IWCC and of course he will be at the meeting. I will also be there as an observer. I expect that this will sharpen the media's interest in the elephant trophy imports and similar issues.

Good luck @Paul Babaz ! I'm certain you'll represent us well. Will the meeting be public, or is this a closed door meeting? Rick, if it's closed door I can show you how to make recordings on your phone.