Animal "Protection" Groups Doing Little to Protect African Lions

Animal "Protection" Groups Doing Little to Protect African Lions

New Report Shows How Animal Rights Hypocrites Keep Lion's Share of Donations and Stiff African Communities.

Washington, D.C. Safari Club International Foundation (SCI Foundation) exposed the hypocrisy of four animal rights groups in a new report released today. The report, "Keeping the Lion's Share" counters a "study" issued last week questioning the role of hunters in helping African communities, and calling for African lions to be listed by the U.S. government as an endangered species. The report points to figures that show the millions of dollars contributed by hunters to African communities dwarf the paltry expenditures by the animal rights groups in sub-Saharan Africa.

View attached report.

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), its affiliate Humane Society International (HSI), the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), and Born Free USA collectively raised $151 million yet spent only about 1 penny of every dollar raised in Africa, according to their most recent annual tax returns. In fact, HSUS gave a paltry 0.03% of the money it raised in grants to sub-Saharan Africa. Further, much of the grant money from these groups doesn't appear to be directed toward lion conservation at all.

"The animal rights groups raise a pretty penny by ginning up one complaint after another," stated SCI Foundation President Joe Hosmer. "But they are hypocrites, plowing the money into bloated overhead rather than into science and the conservation of African wildlife."

The report also details the less-than-stellar grades several of the animal rights groups draw from the charity watchdog American Institute of Philanthropy (AIP). AIP awards HSUS a "D" grade, finding the group spends up to half its budget on overhead, and awards "C-minus" and "C" grades to IFAW and Born Free USA, respectively, for their wasteful spending practices.

Meanwhile, Alexander Songorwa, Tanzania's top wildlife official, wrote in The New York Times in March praising the "critical role" that hunters play in African communities. Hunting generated $75 million for his country's economy alone between 2008 and 2011, providing funds to sustain game reserves, support locally operated wildlife management, and build schools, roads, and hospitals. Revenues from hunting generate $200 million annually in remote rural areas of Africa.

"Hunting is a vital part of sustaining rural African communities, and the Safari Club International Foundation is very proud to have a number of charitable and scientific programs that directly help the communities," concluded Conservation Committee Chairman Dr. Al Maki. "HSUS, IFAW, Born Free USA, and HSI should stop sponsoring spurious studies to further an extreme animal rights agenda, and put their money where their mouth is."

For more information, visit http://member.safariclubfoundation.org/Keeping-The-Lions-Share. To interview a spokesperson, please contact media@safariclub.org.



Safari Club International Foundation (SCI Foundation) is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization that funds and manages worldwide programs dedicated to wildlife conservation, outdoor education, and humanitarian services. Since 2000, SCIF has provided over $50 million to these causes around the world. Visit Safari Club International Foundation for more.



Source: Safari Club International Foundation (SCI Foundation)

Give Alexander Songorwa credit for coming out and giving hunters credit...........but just when you think he has it figured out he goes and changes Tanzania's hunting rules on July 1 (the first day of the hunting season) and screws up people that have their hunt booked for 2013.......some already in the air with no clue there hunt is screwed up and they may not be able to hunt or their hunt will cost thousands more. Africa love it or hate it, it is always Africa!

oh well, not the first time we see something like this happen. These "groups" have much more interest in the money than in the animals themselves. There are many like that in my country. Thanks for sharing Jerome!

True FerRGarza. It's common for many so-called "not-for-profit" organizations, whatever their 'flavor.' I was stunned when earning my masters in international management back in the 90s to learn that NFPs outnumbered 'for profit' corporations three-to-one. It's likely even greater than that now. Something most people don't realize is the term "not-for-profit" itself is extremely misguiding. They are so designated because they do not have stockholders, but most are hardly without profit. They simply don't distribute profits to stockholders. The profits all too often go to the executives of the organizations! Many have people working for them for peanuts and often have lots of volunteers working for free. Meanwhile, those running the organization make multi-six figure incomes with bonus programs that add to that. Many are nothing more than con artists and politically driven groups. In the USA, MANY of the green and animal rights groups are 'joined at the hip' with the Democrat Party and as such are little more than extensions of the DP. They have a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship. The NFPs deliver votes to select Democrat politicians, for which they are repaid with "grants" from the taxpayers, part of which is then rerouted back to the Democrat's campaign coffiers. We saw this all the time with the Clinton administration where DoD funding was shifted away from base cleanup work to fund grants to "green" groups for them to conduct "studies" about base clean ups. Their "work" consisted of reports on how well the base cleanups were going. In other words, they duplicated the EPA's job. So the taxpayers were stuck with the bill four times. A contractor would be hired to conduct the clean up. This was usually paid for and overseen by the Army Corps of Engineers. Then the EPA would come in and oversee the projects. And now we'd have these 'green' groups, almost all of which were former nuke protest groups from the 1980s which had to find a new 'schtick' once the USSR collapsed, coming in and essentially duplicating the EPA's role. So, we'd actually PULL funding from the actual clean up in order to report how well the clean up projects were doing, and of course, Bill Clinton saw healthy sums from those millions of dollars in grants rerouted right back to his reelection campaign funds. In other words, those of us who didn't want him in office were forced to finance his reelection anyways.

And the same thing is happening with Obama.

Many are nothing more than con artists and politically driven groups

Click to expand...

You couldn't have said it better ILCAPO. These organizations are actually some of the best businesses around. And indeed, the people up top have 6 figure + salary. not to long ago, and I don't want to hijack the thread (just an example), but in my city. a non profit disappeared $24,000,000 (MX pesos). they ended up in the mayors pocket...go figure. I also believe some of the donations given to these orgs are tax deductible. (although not too sure on the factors). As long as we are doing responsible, ethical hunting, rest assured we are contributing more than these organizations.

Speaking of the Devil. the NY Times published this article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/07/u...iving-end-of-others-anger.html?pagewanted=all

FerRGarza said:

Speaking of the Devil. the NY Times published this article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/07/u...iving-end-of-others-anger.html?pagewanted=all

Click to expand...

PETA is a particularly egregious offender of the "Do as I say, not as a I do" philosophy. I have no use for the radicals of that leftist organization. That's why many of us say "We're members of PETA... People Eating Tasty Animals!"

ILCAPO said:

PETA is a particularly egregious offender of the "Do as I say, not as a I do" philosophy. I have no use for the radicals of that leftist organization. That's why many of us say "We're members of PETA... People Eating Tasty Animals!"

Click to expand...

Thats too funny! good one!