· Public charity
Shikar-Safari Club International
The organizations mission is to teach and promote the conservation of wildlife and protection of the environment, including an annual convention to promote conservation.
Where the money goes
Grants by size, and the largest recipients.
How this is measured
By grant size · FY2025
- $10k–50k6 grants · $137k
- $50k–250k13 grants · $1.1M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Ivan Carter Wildlife Conser | $130,000 |
| LA Dept of Wildlife & Fisher | $125,000 |
| Chem Chem Association | $100,938 |
| South Carolina Waterfowl Asso | $100,000 |
| The Forever Wild Foundation | $100,000 |
| Water for Wildlife Foundation | $100,000 |
| Zambeze Delta Safaris Conserv | $85,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $75,000 |
| Rowland Ward Foundation | $59,600 |
| EBN Hunting Safaris LTD | $50,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $50,000 |
| TX Wildlife Assoc Foundation | $50,000 |
| Alaska Prof Hunters Assoc | $50,000 |
| Americans for Oxford | $45,000 |
| Blood Origins Inc | $25,000 |
Does the money reach high-need areas?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.
US giving: 88% of grant dollars ($1.1M). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 12% that went abroad ($151k) is mapped below.
Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY25–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 77% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
How this is measured
Which US states its grants reach
Beyond the US: 12% of all-years giving ($151k)
1 country, by the recipient’s country on the filing.
How this is measured
6 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.
How this is measured
Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 6 of the 19 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.
Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee
Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding
A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
Co-funders
Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.
Open a dossier: Weatherby Foundation International Inc
How this is measured
How much its grantees rely on government
Each dot is one organization Shikar-Safari Club International funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Shikar-Safari Club International. Bigger dots raise more.
How this is measured
Play a game based on Shikar-Safari Club International’s filings →