rookhawk
AH ambassador
I've been a SCI member for awhile, attend many chapter functions and am also a SCI measurer. Post Walter Palmer / Cecil I've had some discomfort with SCI and was hoping to alleviate that discomfort. Does anyone know how to get a public position from the SCI board and legal council to these questions?
1.) If an SCI member is accused of a wildlife violation in the future, will SCI suspend or engage in any disciplinary measures prior to a court ruling in a governing jurisdiction determines one's guilt or innocence properly?
2.) If asked for press comment after any allegation of wildlife violations by an SCI member, will it be the position of the communications team at SCI to hold to this policy: "We believe in the rule of law and our utmost respect for wildlife conservation. We will reserve judgment and further statement until all facts are properly adjudicated in a court of law."
3.) Has SCI written a formal and public apology to Mr. Palmer and Mr. Bronkhorst for their suspensions from SCI that were done in haste?
4.) Has SCI reinstated Mr. Palmer's membership?
5.) Was SCI's approach to the suspension of Mr. Palmer different due to him having a prior wildlife plea for a black bear? (meaning, if any other SCI member had NO convictions or previous plea, would they also be suspended for a similar accusation as Mr. Palmer's harvest of Cecil?)
I can think of only one thing worse than the national media convicting a honest man in the court of public opinion for unethical hunting, that would be when the hunting fraternity turns on the same man bolstering the public outrage. SCI provided additional fuel to public fire and I fear if this is their approach, any honest hunter could become the next victim.
I ask all these questions in all seriousness because I'm concerned that suspensions compound the appearance of guilt when a member gets "thrown under the bus". If the way Mr. Palmer was handled by SCI is consistent with present policy I would prefer to donate to SCI (for the good work they do) and NOT maintain membership (so membership cannot be revoked by mere accusation without conviction).
Thoughts?
1.) If an SCI member is accused of a wildlife violation in the future, will SCI suspend or engage in any disciplinary measures prior to a court ruling in a governing jurisdiction determines one's guilt or innocence properly?
2.) If asked for press comment after any allegation of wildlife violations by an SCI member, will it be the position of the communications team at SCI to hold to this policy: "We believe in the rule of law and our utmost respect for wildlife conservation. We will reserve judgment and further statement until all facts are properly adjudicated in a court of law."
3.) Has SCI written a formal and public apology to Mr. Palmer and Mr. Bronkhorst for their suspensions from SCI that were done in haste?
4.) Has SCI reinstated Mr. Palmer's membership?
5.) Was SCI's approach to the suspension of Mr. Palmer different due to him having a prior wildlife plea for a black bear? (meaning, if any other SCI member had NO convictions or previous plea, would they also be suspended for a similar accusation as Mr. Palmer's harvest of Cecil?)
I can think of only one thing worse than the national media convicting a honest man in the court of public opinion for unethical hunting, that would be when the hunting fraternity turns on the same man bolstering the public outrage. SCI provided additional fuel to public fire and I fear if this is their approach, any honest hunter could become the next victim.
I ask all these questions in all seriousness because I'm concerned that suspensions compound the appearance of guilt when a member gets "thrown under the bus". If the way Mr. Palmer was handled by SCI is consistent with present policy I would prefer to donate to SCI (for the good work they do) and NOT maintain membership (so membership cannot be revoked by mere accusation without conviction).
Thoughts?
I just appreciate the fact that those who can understand terms and conditions generally have an upper hand over those that do not. I've seen a lot of honest people exploited in my lifetime so my interest in the law is for purposes of evening the playing field. It's why I also was interested in the topic of this post because it goes hand in hand with what we call "game theory". How can I trust SCI won't do to me what they did to a dentist without evidence? I hope there was a lesson learned for SCI in the brash and hasty approach so I'd like to hear from SCI that they won't do what they did ever again. 
