SCI Condemns Arbitrary Decision by Domestic Airlines to Ban Hunting Trophies

In what appears to be an ill-advised response to public attention, Delta Air Lines, United Airlines and American Airlines each announced the immediate suspension of cargo shipments of lion, elephant, rhinoceros, leopard, and buffalo trophies. The airlines have given no indication that they will ban the shipment of trophies of any other species. For Delta Air Lines, the ban represents a direct reversal of the position it announced on May 13, 2015. On that date, Delta, which is the only U.S. domestic carrier with direct service to South Africa, committed to continuing the shipment of all legally hunted trophies.

The three U.S. airlines — and other airlines around the world that have succumbed to media pressure — have little understanding or concern about the harm that their embargoes will cause to wildlife conservation. International hunters generate and deliver much needed funds to the areas where wildlife actually exists. Each action that airlines take to discourage international hunting means less money to fight poaching, preserve habitat, and sustainably manage wildlife populations.

These three airline announcements came weeks after several other international airlines implemented changes to their policies concerning the shipment of hunting trophies. Not all airlines are enforcing trophy shipment embargoes. For example, on July 22, 2015, thanks in great part to the efforts of the Professional Hunters Association of South Africa, with support from SCI, South African Airways reconsidered and reversed an embargo that it had implemented months before.

Safari Club International will continue to advocate for legal hunting, sustainable-use conservation and the reversal of all trophy embargos. Please continue to monitor your communications from SCI for further developments on this and other issues important to the hunting community.



Source: Safari Club International (SCI)

I know people are down on SCI, but I have meet some of the most best and most experienced guys there. I think maybe their mission statement will have to change though. I think A LOT more money will have to be dedicated to fighting anti-hunter terrorism.

enysse said:

I know people are down on SCI, but I have meet some of the most best and most experienced guys there. I think maybe their mission statement will have to change though. I think A LOT more money will have to be dedicated to fighting anti-hunter terrorism.

Click to expand...

I agree enysse!

But it's not only SCI I hear people badmouthing. As I've said before I hear people badmouthing NRA, DSC, RMEF, DU and any other organization you can think of that supports and promotes hunting and firearms ownership.

Besides ignoring any benefit provided to them by such supportive organizations these same people will always have a reason not to join and pay the nominal membership dues. Yet they will always shout about how their right to firearms ownership is being undermined and how their hunting rights are being restricted or taken away entirely.

They clearly want all the benefits, but they don't want to invest a single dime to join in and contribute to the fight. They obviously feel no shame or guilt in passing all financial responsibility off on others.

The only way our right to hunt and possess firearms will be maintained is through membership, financial contributions and participation in supportive organizations. Few things piss me off more than hunters who will find a reason to avoid membership in ANY organization that supports our sport hunting interest.

Okay, I'll step down from the soapbox now.

I honestly can't agree more with you Big5!

Thank you Jerome, for doing your part in fighting this

Absolutely, they need to re think how they fight social media and beyond when we are so brutally attacked.

johnnyblues, I agree that it may be time for SCI and other supportive organizations to re-prioritize their efforts and place a greater emphasis on campaigns that directly target and counter the social media attacks by anti's. But the fact remains that any effort SCI or any other organization undertakes will ultimately require participation and funding through basic membership or donation.

I believe membership in supportive organizations, or lack thereof, is where we sport hunters are dropping the ball. Surely the collective membership of all supportive organizations is a minuscule number relative to the number of people who own firearms and hunt for sport.

Recent numbers indicate that there are 13.5 + million hunters in the U.S. alone. I wonder how many of those hunters bother to join or contribute something more than lip service to maintaining their hunting heritage? You must know the number is shamefully low.

Big5 said:

johnnyblues, I agree that it may be time for SCI and other supportive organizations to re-prioritize their efforts and place a greater emphasis on campaigns that directly target and counter the social media attacks by anti's. But the fact remains that any effort SCI or any other organization undertakes will ultimately require participation and funding through basic membership or donation.

I believe membership in supportive organizations, or lack thereof, is where we sport hunters are dropping the ball. Surely the collective membership of all supportive organizations is a minuscule number relative to the number of people who own firearms and hunt for sport.

Recent numbers indicate that there are 13.5 + million hunters in the U.S. alone. I wonder how many of those hunters bother to join or contribute something more than lip service to maintaining their hunting heritage? You must know the number is shamefully low.

Click to expand...

This is where SCI needs to unite the gun manufactures, ammo makers, gear/clothing makers, etc for funding. They reap the rewards of hunters buying their products, so why don't they "give back" to continue to support the sport? Most hunters IMO don't travel to hunt, we are but a small group. You see the attitude of many hunters...."rich guys" who just kill for the trophy. That un-united attitude hurts us severely. It's time for the big boy's to step in and again as I ve said many times hire a PR firm to deal with the uninformed anti hunter and general public. We are losing the war in public opinion. Why.....No clear voice stating the facts.

Your point about soliciting greater involvement by the outdoor sporting industry is excellent. A great portion of their business directly depends on outdoor enthusiasts and hunters. However, it is the sport hunter who has the most to lose. Restrictions will cost manufacturers their income. Those same restrictions will continue to cost sport hunters their right to firearms ownership and their right to hunt.

Again, there are more than 13.5 million hunters in the U.S. alone that are facing the ultimate loss of their right to possess firearms and the loss of their right to hunt. What are most of them doing besides just sitting idly by and complaining?

The effort needs direct participation from all hunters and sporting manufacturers alike.

Big 5,
The problem is that ALL the organizations are"FAT CATS"
Over the years when there were no real big issues, things were easy and smooth ....
Now there are problems and they don't know how to handle them .......
If all along they were promoting and fighting for the hunter, we would not be here now.
The Antis 'back-doored' us by using the government to put restrictions on Airlines, guns, ammo etc.....
They ALL need to get their head out of the sand and say "ALL FOR ONE, ONE FOR ALL !!!!!!!!!!

BTW, from the regular announcements I receive from SCI it would seem that they've recently had more success at recruiting corporate sponsors than in the area of increasing the general membership. It therefore appears that there has been an ongoing effort to bring more manufacturers on board.

robertq said:

. . . They ALL need to get their head out of the sand and say "ALL FOR ONE, ONE FOR ALL !!!!!!!!!!

Click to expand...

You'll get no argument from me with that. As I mentioned a re-prioritization of effort is in order. But that still does not negate my issue with so few who will step up and offer more than lip service and expect others to carry the load for them. We're in it together.

All the FAT CATS have BIG money and they all get a BIG salary.....
I have a booth in Dallas, SCI & Houston...do you know what that costs?
Plus big donations or you don't get a booth........
They do one thing and post it to let everyone know they are working for your dollar...really?
We as members need to ask: How are you preventing the possible end to the hunting industry and poaching ?

I would love to get a senior SCI official to speak up in a thread like this. Being the largest african hunting forum on the net it probably wouldn't hurt to have some representation on here.

IMHO using terms such as 'Fat Cats', or people with 'Big Money' and similar terms to describe the SCI leadership, members, or fellow hunters plays directly into the hands of the anti hunter movement. Isn't that one of the ways they're demonizing Palmer and unfairly portraying all trophy and sport hunters?

Certainly the vast majority of those involved with SCI are middle of the road income folks who just like to hunt and wish to maintain their right to do so like most of us here on this forum.

With regard to the cost of a booth at the SCI show and the mandatory donation that goes along with it, I do realize that it's high. SCI also requires attendees to maintain a membership in order to attend. But that's the price that must be paid if a business entity wishes to set up a booth to advertise services and drum up potential business from the people who purchased a membership and a door pass to attend. Besides, if vendors weren't benefitting in some way it's unlikely they'd be paying the cost to return year after year.

My business is not related to the hunting industry, but there is a similar high cost for me to advertise and maintain a customer base. I too pay affiliate memberships, convention booth fees, make monetary donations and also donate my business services. I feel that's all part of marketing and doing business within my industry. And, if I wasn't benefitting in some way I wouldn't be doing the same thing year after year.

I also feel that my membership dues and donations to SCI or other organizations are all part of maintaining an influential support group for something I'm interested in. Certainly by doing so I once again benefit.

I am a member of both SCI and DSC. I don't hear a thing out of SCI, while DCS while late to the game, DSC is on the attack on social media.

Great comments one and all! I find myself in agreement with ninety-something percent of what has been said.
Just a few thoughts on multiple topics...

johnnyblues said:

Absolutely, they need to re think how they fight social media and beyond when we are so brutally attacked.

Click to expand...

Johnnyblues I could not agree more! This is a very dynamic "world". Things are continually changing and sometimes at an unbelievably rapid pace. Our gun and hunting organizations are going to have to adapt and keep pace. The more nimble and sophisticated they are, the better we will all be served.

johnnyblues said:

This is where SCI needs to unite the gun manufactures, ammo makers, gear/clothing makers, etc for funding. They reap the rewards of hunters buying their products, so why don't they "give back" to continue to support the sport?

Click to expand...

I also agree 100% with you that some "body" needs to be a unifying voice, an organization that provides leadership. The point of the spear leading the charge.
Every organization has it flaws, but we could point to the NRA as something of a model for what we need from our hunting organizations. Vision, message, inspiration, lobbying, legislation (protection of hunters rights bills from lawmakers), education, on and on, etc, etc, etc.
It seems SCI, DSC and others got blindsided this time around. Doesn't mean we should jump ship, quite the opposite. Now's the time to "jump in". However, I do believe it is completely fair to let these organizations know we expect more. Fool us once shame on you, fool us twice shame on us.
As for business, no doubt businesses of all stripes and colors who derive revenue from guns and hunting have a vested interest and should be supporting big time! More can always be done and I agree many are not doing enough. HOWEVER!, you might be surprised at just how much some of them do contribute. Just because it is not advertised how much so and so contributed doesn't mean they aren't giving a lot. And not just in cash contributions. Ruger as one example literally gives MILLIONS of dollars in firearms to organizations across the country. Go to any event/banquet and you will see Ruger firearms as door prizes, raffle prizes, auction prizes, etc, etc, etc. same with Smith & Wesson, Sig, CZ and too many others to count. It is much easier for these companies to donate product and much more desirable for them as well. They derive marketing benefit from it. Makes alot more sense for them.

Johnny7604 said:

I would love to get a senior SCI official to speak up in a thread like this. Being the largest african hunting forum on the net it probably wouldn't hurt to have some representation on here.

Click to expand...

Absolutely Johnny7604! We should invite folks from the head shed at SCI, DSC, HSC, NRA and many other organizations to become members and contribute on a regular basis.

Just my two bits as usual Probably worth what ya paid for it

IdaRam said:

. . . This is a very dynamic "world". Things are continually changing and sometimes at an unbelievably rapid pace. Our gun and hunting organizations are going to have to adapt and keep pace. The more nimble and sophisticated they are, the better we will all be served.

We should invite folks from the head shed at SCI, DSC, HSC, NRA and many other organizations to become members and contribute on a regular basis.

Just my two bits as usual Probably worth what ya paid for it

Click to expand...

Your "two bits" on the matter was positive and spot on. I particularly like what is quoted above as the value of those selected statements alone are worth far more than what you claim.

IdaRam said:

Great comments one and all! I find myself in agreement with ninety-something percent of what has been said.
Just a few thoughts on multiple topics...


Johnnyblues I could not agree more! This is a very dynamic "world". Things are continually changing and sometimes at an unbelievably rapid pace. Our gun and hunting organizations are going to have to adapt and keep pace. The more nimble and sophisticated they are, the better we will all be served.



I also agree 100% with you that some "body" needs to be a unifying voice, an organization that provides leadership. The point of the spear leading the charge.
Every organization has it flaws, but we could point to the NRA as something of a model for what we need from our hunting organizations. Vision, message, inspiration, lobbying, legislation (protection of hunters rights bills from lawmakers), education, on and on, etc, etc, etc.
It seems SCI, DSC and others got blindsided this time around. Doesn't mean we should jump ship, quite the opposite. Now's the time to "jump in". However, I do believe it is completely fair to let these organizations know we expect more. Fool us once shame on you, fool us twice shame on us.
As for business, no doubt businesses of all stripes and colors who derive revenue from guns and hunting have a vested interest and should be supporting big time! More can always be done and I agree many are not doing enough. HOWEVER!, you might be surprised at just how much some of them do contribute. Just because it is not advertised how much so and so contributed doesn't mean they aren't giving a lot. And not just in cash contributions. Ruger as one example literally gives MILLIONS of dollars in firearms to organizations across the country. Go to any event/banquet and you will see Ruger firearms as door prizes, raffle prizes, auction prizes, etc, etc, etc. same with Smith & Wesson, Sig, CZ and too many others to count. It is much easier for these companies to donate product and much more desirable for them as well. They derive marketing benefit from it. Makes alot more sense for them.


Absolutely Johnny7604! We should invite folks from the head shed at SCI, DSC, HSC, NRA and many other organizations to become members and contribute on a regular basis.

Just my two bits as usual Probably worth what ya paid for it

Click to expand...

I agree a lot more can and should be done by all involved on all levels in the hunting industry. But what your saying is precisely what I mean. You mention Ruger and other gun manufactures give away firearms at banquets /events....Who is going to these banquets? Hunters and possibly their spouse and kids...We ARE NOT reaching out to the non hunting public as the anti's do. And they do it VERY well. We do need an organization like the NRA who sink there teeth into the issues to speak up, protect and educate us to the public. As I ve said many times we are losing in the court of public opinion. Instead of giving away millions of dollars in products let them put that money to better use by assuring us hunting will continue in the future. We need to change public perception of hunting and hunters. We need professional help here. I m not going to say hire a powerful PR firm, as I ve said it way too much already.

It seems SCI, DSC and others got blindsided this time around. Doesn't mean we should jump ship, quite the opposite. Now's the time to "jump in". However, I do believe it is completely fair to let these organizations know we expect more. Fool us once shame on you, fool us twice shame on us.

Click to expand...

SCI was not prepared for this, they hopefully will next time.

I don't look at this as a failure, because frankly all these conservation groups think firstly about a number of topics: conservation, providing hunts to the disadvantaged, gun rights, wildlife research projects......they were not prepared for a terrorist attack, which this was in a lot of ways. A lot of misinformation and the media did a terrible job telling the story. I wished they had been sued for all the misinformation and lies they spread. It seems we allow people to report untruthful stories without any consequences. What happen to journalist actually doing their job????????????