SCI versus "critter" orgs

[Rainier10]

So the blue mtns study thread got derailed with what does RMEF actually do.

@jackelope started a new thread in elk hunting about RMEF.  That thread is now getting off track on what an advocacy organization does, SCI, versus what critter organizations do, RMEF/Duck Unlimited/Mule Deer Foundation.

Here is a link to SCI's mission statement and how they advocate for hunters versus enhances habitat like the "critter" orgs do.

https://safariclub.org/about-us/

I think it is a great idea to be a member of whatever "critter" org you want because habitat is essential but it is also beneficial to hunters to be a member of a group like SCI.

[bearpaw]

So the blue mtns study thread got derailed with what does RMEF actually do.

@jackelope started a new thread in elk hunting about RMEF.  That thread is now getting off track on what an advocacy organization does, SCI, versus what critter organizations do, RMEF/Duck Unlimited/Mule Deer Foundation.

Here is a link to SCI's mission statement and how they advocate for hunters versus enhances habitat like the "critter" orgs do.

https://safariclub.org/about-us/

I think it is a great idea to be a member of whatever "critter" org you want because habitat is essential but it is also beneficial to hunters to be a member of a group like SCI.

  completely agree

[Rainier10]

I have been a member of RMEF for years and for the last 3-4 have talked about joining SCI.  I assumed they were the same and SCI just seemed more high end than RMEF to me, like a rich man's RMEF.  Maybe that is why SCI advocates, they have deeper pockets to fight the fight. 

[bearpaw]

The old SCI image is a stumbling block for many, but look at SCI how people looked at Trump, judge SCI for what they do, not for any old images people have about them being elitists. They really do pour a lot of money into projects on the ground as well as fight political battles for hunting.

We have antelope because of SCI and the Yakamas! Someday hunters will get to hunt antelope in WA!

[Special T]

I'm guilty of being part of the reason the other thread was derailed.

I do think the difference is quite important, and after understanding the difference has really shaped the way I view and participate with outdoorsman non profits.

Critter organizations areJust habitat organizations that focus around a preferred critter. They have an education component, perhaps support a youth recruitment program... but basically focus on land acquisition, leases, easements, & improvement projects. They developer relationships with sporting goods manufactures and distributors.  They hold banquets  and auctions to raise $. They are the feel good organizations that have a proven business model and are nearly interchangeable depending on the critter. They excell at what they do but the are but one tool in the belt. My personal criticism of them as a whole group is that portray that they are advocates for sportsmen. None of them are, some attempt to shine you on more than others.

They cannot be advocates because it does not work with the business model. Corperations only want warm and fuzzy. The messy work with the legislators and over predator issues and such interfears with selling sportsmen so most prefer the safe PC investment. The problem is we cannot do enough habitat improvements. We have to work at actual management. That work is political, messy, and  sportsmen are the underdog in this state. It also means that smart organized folks can effect the most amount of change by supporting advocacy groups.

SCI is the ONLY active national advocacy Org in this state although a couple of others do exist. I personally belong to the Washington Waterfowl Association. While it does do conservation work, duck boxes and nests, they primarily focus on waterfowl hunters.  They donate time and $ to re/build blinds and other access projects. The most important thing they do IMO is engage the WDFW. The department is he'll bent on turning every acre of public land suitable into salmon habitat. They fight the good fight. On Salmon they normally loose but try and salvage something out of the loss. They have also fought against no shooting ordanaces like the Current push in Drayton Harbor near Blaine.

I have an affinity for small local orgs, but a national one like SCI has some extra heft because of the Large scale and longer term institutional knowledge t
It possesses.

[Bogiedog!]

The difference is based on what type of organization they are registered as with the IRS.  SCI can be political, while the critter organizations are not able to do that and remain in "good standing".

Critter Orgs can do the warm and fuzzy stuff, and so can SCI. 

While critter orgs usually remain very focused on their mission, SCI has a tendency to move around a bit, at least on the International side.  Local chapters are a little more focused, but remain at the will of the board of directors which are elected every year.  People that are on these boards change, and then so does the focus.  To a point.....

Does SCI fight the good battle in Washington DC??  Yes, they do.
International is more difficult as governments change as well as people in power.

Remember, SCI is to hunting exactly the same as NRA is to guns.  Except the NRA fights for your 'right' to keep, while SCI fghts for your privilege to hunt.  Hunting is not a right anywhere in the US Constitution. 

[bearhunter99]

Too many threads opened at once.  This fits here a little better.

If I could make one change it would be changing the way sportsmen understood who is actually fighting for them.

  Comment of the day right there!

This is the gist of it.  Every organization has its own purpose or specialty and it can be tough to choose. 

I have been a member of RMEF and MDF for 20+ years and have served on committees in various capacities and helped with some of the projects.  They both do some amazing things for habitat and like any other organization they do have some waste.  Bottom line though is they both make a difference in their niche.

I never really understood what SCI did until a few years ago and have become a staunch supporter of their efforts.  Where other groups focus mainly on habitat and preservation of a species, they are focused more on the hunter itself.  I just wish there was a banquet closer to home!

Although I have been turned off a little in recent times with the NRA I still attend banquets because I really enjoy them.  I still think they tend to do more good than harm but they have been corrupted a bit by the political machine.  I have switched more support to the 2nd Amendment Foundation recently.

[Rainier10]

Too many threads opened at once.  This fits here a little better.

If I could make one change it would be changing the way sportsmen understood who is actually fighting for them.

  Comment of the day right there!

This is the gist of it.  Every organization has its own purpose or specialty and it can be tough to choose. 

I have been a member of RMEF and MDF for 20+ years and have served on committees in various capacities and helped with some of the projects.  They both do some amazing things for habitat and like any other organization they do have some waste.  Bottom line though is they both make a difference in their niche.

I never really understood what SCI did until a few years ago and have become a staunch supporter of their efforts.  Where other groups focus mainly on habitat and preservation of a species, they are focused more on the hunter itself.  I just wish there was a banquet closer to home!

Although I have been turned off a little in recent times with the NRA I still attend banquets because I really enjoy them.  I still think they tend to do more good than harm but they have been corrupted a bit by the political machine.  I have switched more support to the 2nd Amendment Foundation recently.

Thanks for moving it over here.  I deleted it from the other thread to try to keep it on track.