SCI isn’t radical

In her Aug. 21 letter, Susan Cockrell branded Safari Club International as “a radical hunting group.”

I have belonged to SCI for 20 years and do not recognize her characterization. She probably has zero experience with SCI and its members and obviously is not aware of the fact that SCI has shipped thousands of school books to schools in Africa, sponsored medical care in Africa and sponsored research on animals all over the world. In addition, it spends millions on conservation and anti-poaching efforts.

Like most anti-hunters, she apparently prefers to snipe from the sidelines rather than getting involved with time and money. Last year I spent more than $2,000 on wildlife habitat improvement and hunted nothing.

Safari Club International, for example, sponsors research on jaguars in Belize. Jaguars are scarce mostly due to poaching and habitat loss. Here is a chance for Cockrell to do something worthwhile. She can shoot a jaguar with SCI assistance with a dart. The animal can then be sized, sexed, checked for disease and released. You can’t help and manage a species if you have no idea of its range, production rates, food supply and numbers.

That is what the Maine moose study is about. How much money did Cockrell and her friends spend for the study? Criticize the study on scientific and recognized game management standards, please. And she should send the Maine wardens $1,000 to buy much-needed equipment to stop poaching. Hunters pay for their privilege. Sideline experts like Cockrell get to watch the moose, but pay next to nothing for the privilege.

Would she prefer I shoot a moose, or she hit it with her mini-van?

Terry Miller

Lee