We are headed to Niassa with Derek Littleton for his/her Leopards in June 2014.

Chatted with a few of the Zim boys about Ele for 2015. Doing more research on that.

From what I heard, many outfitters were disappointed in their sales.

I didn't buy , yet. However, I am in the process of setting up a Australia/New Zealand hunt for 2014. After discussing with Wade Lemon while in Reno, I am going to bid on a conservation tag in UT for rocky mountain big horn. That will occur next month.

Elephant and Leopard in Zim with Brian Van Blerk along with 3 days of plains game with Serapa to get acclimated.

I heard some guys saying it was pretty decent at Reno, and some saying it showed the economy is not good.

Duno, but I cannot take it with me...

Sat next to a nice gentleman on the plane, ironically, both to and from Reno. Same guy.

He has 13 hunts scheduled. I am not certain, but it sounded like the majority of them were bought at the auctions.

I asked quite a few guys how it was. It ranged from, "Terrible, worst show in many years." to "Excellent!" I'm asking extremely well established operators and booking agents too. Not new guys. I asked guys who should be taking checks.

I would say the average of all the opinions I got was that it was definitely off quite a bit.

Noticeably smaller crowds. No doubt. Some say "It's because it's in Reno. Vegas will be better." I disagree. I have only done Vegas once and I remember many shows where there was a line, and you never stopped talking.

Individual operators experience may vary. I know some guys who probably would disagree with me because they did well. But, overall. It was way off.

quote:

Originally posted by Wendell Reich:
Sat next to a nice gentleman on the plane, ironically, both to and from Reno. Same guy.

He has 13 hunts scheduled. I am not certain, but it sounded like the majority of them were bought at the auctions.

I asked quite a few guys how it was. It ranged from, "Terrible, worst show in many years." to "Excellent!" I'm asking extremely well established operators and booking agents too. Not new guys. I asked guys who should be taking checks.

I would say the average of all the opinions I got was that it was definitely off quite a bit.

Noticeably smaller crowds. No doubt. Some say "It's because it's in Reno. Vegas will be better." I disagree. I have only done Vegas once and I remember many shows where there was a line, and you never stopped talking.

Individual operators experience may vary. I know some guys who probably would disagree with me because they did well. But, overall. It was way off.

Wendell,

I am getting similar reports.

Some actually said this was the worst show they have been too.

Two of my African friends said it was off..One in Tanz and one in South Africa. THe 2 guys selling deer hunts here in the states said DSC, HSC were the best shows they had in years..maybe folks are staying closer to home???

Ed

Same thing on this end. Mates emails state attendance was off in both Dallas and Reno and a some of the PHs he knows will stay home next year as they lost money for the first time in Reno as bookings were off.
Hope it gets better.
To improve attendance, how about combining the convention with a gun show?
Cal

I was at the show and loved it.I was blessed to be able to attend and the time I had will remain in my mind forever.Long live Reno and SCI!

I have spoken to several operators including Chifuti, Pete Barnard and the Styles brothers and they like ourselves think that it was the worst show we have ever experienced. Luckily for us we were nearly sold out at Dallas however these are the points that "most" operators and Phs feel.

1/ RENO IS A NIGHTMARE TO GET IN AND OUT OF

2/ SCI NEEDS TO DO SOME SOLE SEARCHING AND DECIDED WHAT THEY REALLY STAND FOR AND WHAT THEY ARE OFFERING. ALOT OF PEOPLE ARE GETTING DISILLUSIONED WITH SCI.

3/SCI NEED TO VET WHO DONATES. FOR EXAMPLE A QUICK SEARCH SHOWS THAT ARNOLD PAYNE IS AN UNSAVORY CHARACTER AND SHOULD NOT BE ALOUD TO PARTICIPATE IN SCI AS THEY LOOSE CREDIBILITY ACCEPTING HIS DONATIONS.

LIKEWISE THEY SHOULD SURELY PICK UP THAT HIS DONATED LEOPARD PLAINS GAME HUNT WHICH HE VALUED AT $66000 IS OFF THE CHART WHEN YOU HAVE A TOP OPERATOR THE LIKES OF CHIFUTI DONATING A LEOPARD BUFFALO PLAINS GAME HUNT IN THE ZAMBEZI VALLEY VALUED AT $33000. SOMETHING DOES NOT ADD UP!

4/ THERE WERE ALSO SEVERAL SOUTH AFRICAN OUTFITS DONATING HUNTS IN ZIM- HOW DID THEY PASS ANY SNIFF TEST?

DESPITE DONATING 2 BIG HUNTS TO SCI WE WERE NEVER GREETED, GIVEN A FREE DRINK, THANKED ETC WHILE WE DO NOT CARE TO MUCH ABOUT THAT WE CANNOT BUT NOTICE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SCI AND DALLAS WHERE WE WERE TREATED LIKE KINGS.

5/WHILE WE ALL SUPPORT SCI AND WE APPRECIATE THAT NOW MORE THEN EVER WE NEED TO STAND AS ONE WE FEEL THAT SCI NEEDS TO TAKE A STEP BACK AND REEVALUATE.

That all been said the show was run very efficiently by all and it was great to see friends and new clients alike!

TTT,
I booked a leopard hunt in 2014.
To you hijackers, Las Vegas is kinder to hunting members....those of us who write the cheques.
Next year, you will see a better show.
SCI Convention is what it is....a marketplace. And an excellent one.
You couldn't build a better one (now) no matter how hard you tried.
Dave

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by Wendell Reich:
Sat next to a nice gentleman on the plane, ironically, both to and from Reno. Same guy.

He has 13 hunts scheduled. I am not certain, but it sounded like the majority of them were bought at the auctions.

I asked quite a few guys how it was. It ranged from, "Terrible, worst show in many years." to "Excellent!" I'm asking extremely well established operators and booking agents too. Not new guys. I asked guys who should be taking checks.

I would say the average of all the opinions I got was that it was definitely off quite a bit.

Noticeably smaller crowds. No doubt. Some say "It's because it's in Reno. Vegas will be better." I disagree. I have only done Vegas once and I remember many shows where there was a line, and you never stopped talking.

Individual operators experience may vary. I know some guys who probably would disagree with me because they did well. But, overall. It was way off.

Wendell,

I am getting similar reports.

Some actually said this was the worst show they have been too.

The worst show or the worst SCI show?

quote:

Originally posted by Buzz Charlton:
I have spoken to several operators including Chifuti, Pete Barnard and the Styles brothers and they like ourselves think that it was the worst show we have ever experienced. Luckily for us we were nearly sold out at Dallas however these are the points that "most" operators and Phs feel.

1/ RENO IS A NIGHTMARE TO GET IN AND OUT OF

2/ SCI NEEDS TO DO SOME SOLE SEARCHING AND DECIDED WHAT THEY REALLY STAND FOR AND WHAT THEY ARE OFFERING. ALOT OF PEOPLE ARE GETTING DISILLUSIONED WITH SCI.

3/SCI NEED TO VET WHO DONATES. FOR EXAMPLE A QUICK SEARCH SHOWS THAT ARNOLD PAYNE IS AN UNSAVORY CHARACTER AND SHOULD NOT BE ALOUD TO PARTICIPATE IN SCI AS THEY LOOSE CREDIBILITY ACCEPTING HIS DONATIONS.

LIKEWISE THEY SHOULD SURELY PICK UP THAT HIS DONATED LEOPARD PLAINS GAME HUNT WHICH HE VALUED AT $66000 IS OFF THE CHART WHEN YOU HAVE A TOP OPERATOR THE LIKES OF CHIFUTI DONATING A LEOPARD BUFFALO PLAINS GAME HUNT IN THE ZAMBEZI VALLEY VALUED AT $33000. SOMETHING DOES NOT ADD UP!

4/ THERE WERE ALSO SEVERAL SOUTH AFRICAN OUTFITS DONATING HUNTS IN ZIM- HOW DID THEY PASS ANY SNIFF TEST?

DESPITE DONATING 2 BIG HUNTS TO SCI WE WERE NEVER GREETED, GIVEN A FREE DRINK, THANKED ETC WHILE WE DO NOT CARE TO MUCH ABOUT THAT WE CANNOT BUT NOTICE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SCI AND DALLAS WHERE WE WERE TREATED LIKE KINGS.

5/WHILE WE ALL SUPPORT SCI AND WE APPRECIATE THAT NOW MORE THEN EVER WE NEED TO STAND AS ONE WE FEEL THAT SCI NEEDS TO TAKE A STEP BACK AND REEVALUATE.

That all been said the show was run very efficiently by all and it was great to see friends and new clients alike!

Par for the course my friend.

Arnold Payne is the one who was selling that buffalo in the pen.

He sold it to Jason Stone, who had added it to his incredible list of SCI top trophies.

Just go to his website and see what animals he has been able to provide, no questions asked.

South Africans donating hunts in Zimbabwe?

Why not.

Wasn't that what Out of Africa was doing for so many years?

Under the protection of their lawyer who was high up in SCI?

I think we are dreaming if we had hoped that SCI would change over night.

We live in hope, that someone in the higher management of SCI would finally see what damage some opf their policies are doing in their reputation among hunters.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

Wendell,

I am getting similar reports.

Some actually said this was the worst show they have been too.

Yep, I won't name names, but suffice to say, these were a handful of Africa's most respected (Not necessarily biggest or "most advertised") Outfitters who were saying this. Outfitters whose opinion I trust.

As Buzz stated, Dallas was good to many people. Interesting ... While I will have the odd year where Dallas is better than Reno, I have never heard it as a trend for the outfitters.

On an interesting note, The Weatherby Award will be in Dallas for the next 10 years, instead of at SCI.

Yes, I know, some of us have little time for chest thumping awards, but think about the consequences of this. The big names are more likely to show up at DSC instead of SCI. Business follows the big names. DSC has a huge waiting list to get in.

Not to take away from the massive show that SCI is, it seems to me the pendulum is slowly swinging toward DSC as "The Show".

Just one exhibitors thoughts ...

quote:

Originally posted by Wendell Reich:

As Buzz stated, Dallas was good to many people. Interesting ... While I will have the odd year where Dallas is better than Reno, I have never heard it as a trend for the outfitters.

Yes, I know, some of us have little time for chest thumping awards, but think about the consequences of this. The big names are more likely to show up at DSC instead of SCI. Business follows the big names. DSC has a huge waiting list to get in.

Not to take away from the massive show that SCI is, it seems to me the pendulum is slowly swinging toward DSC as "The Show".

Just one exhibitors thoughts ...

I've been to the Reno show once, about 3 years ago, and just a few weeks ago to DSC. I was very impressed with the DSC environment, i.e. easy access to outfitters, celebs, and the overall crowd was very friendly and helpful. SCI on the other hand.....I've never been more unimpressed with a bunch of wealthy, wannabes, look at me, chest thumping egomaniacs in my life. It was pathetic. I'm sure SCI does some good things, especially on a conservation level, but I in no way, shape, or form desire to be associated with a bunch of shallow minded clowns. I was a member for that one year only, but never again.

SCI was very good for some and very bad for others this year. Vegas was hard to match, and it will end up being in Vegas permanently in the future. SCI has outgrown the Reno Convention Center. I heard that attendance was down a minimum of 30% this year. Some say because of it going back to Reno instead of staying in Vegas, others said because of the economy. In any event, attendance was noticeably down.

Vicki and I had a great time in Reno this year. Our thanks to the Chifuti and Safari Classics bunch: Andrew, Paul, Tim, Dave, Len, Ivan, Mark, et. al. Such a difference to be "family", instead of "looky-lous." Thanks to Buzz and Aaron for the great deals on their DVDs, too. For the clients, a less-crowded show means actually greater contact with outfitters and celebrities, not less. I agree that Vegas has much more space and easier access, but we pay for that with the "just another convention" attitude by convention center staff. At the risk of painting a bullseye on myself, I will state that the incessant aggrandizement of DSC, and the equally incessant criticism of SCI by AR posters does not help our cause. We all need to support both groups, and others as well.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Cheers,
Tim

quote:

I will state that the incessant aggrandizement of DSC, and the equally incessant criticism of SCI by AR posters does not help our cause. We all need to support both groups, and others as well.

My husband booked a winter (February 2014) mountain goat hunt with Bolen/Lewis in British Columbia.

Botswana elephants were doing great. On Friday morning Johan Calitz had 3 left in NG42 ($32,500) NG32, NG41,CT2 ($64,500) were sold out.


Marco Polo sheep in Tajikistan did very well.My husband met with two gentlemen about his blue sheep hunt in Pakistan. One booked a blue sheep hunt the other a blue sheep and Himalayan Ibex.

I've never been to the SCI show but I can't imagine it to be any better than DSC, just bigger. From what I have learned over the past few years I think DSC is more down to earth and user friendly for "everyone." I will attend my first NRA show in Houston, May I believe, having been a long time member.

I don't mean to offend anyone with this question so if I do I apologize upfront.You guys that donate these big ticket hunts ,do you realize a return on them? since you are exhibiting at the show do feel you are losing a perspective client? Or since you are exhibiting do you get more exposure and book more clients because they come to your booth to ask about the hunt? I know the answer is supposed to be that the hunt is donated for the cause but as a business owner you are there to book hunters . I know some people are looking for a deal when they are at the banquets.I actually had someone try solicit a hunt from me for an event and flat out say to me that they would bid on it if they could buy it right . They were actually on a hunt with me at the time and killed pretty nice bull. They were here on a hunt they had bought at an auction for about 75percent of value..The reason I ask is because I have donated 5 hunts over the past few years and have never had the buyer bring anyone with them or come back. They all Still email me or call couple Times a year so they are not upset about their trip, they just got a decent deal or felt they bought the trip to benefit the function.This will be the first year I will be at a show exhibiting and donating a trip and am curious if it will be different. As far as bookings being down at SCI do you think people went with the intention of just picking up a deal at the auction? Thats the question I was hoping to not offend anyone with . If I crossed a line please pm me
Tony Piscopo
Continental Divide Outfitters
Montana

quote:

Originally posted by Bwanna:

quote:

I will state that the incessant aggrandizement of DSC, and the equally incessant criticism of SCI by AR posters does not help our cause. We all need to support both groups, and others as well.

Almost becoming like "don't criticize the government" as they are doing everything for you statement.

SCI has put themselves into this hole.

And they are the ONLY ones who can dig themselves out of it.

COMPULSORY DONATIONS!!??

Can anyone come up with a more abhorant term than this?

And WHERE is it going?

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

COMPULSORY DONATIONS!!??

Can anyone come up with a more abhorant term than this?

Yes indeed - a term minted right here at Accurate Reloading!!

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

COMPULSORY DONATIONS!!??

Can anyone come up with a more abhorant term than this?

Yes indeed - a term minted right here at Accurate Reloading!!

Matt,

SCI makes compulsory to pay a donation - not sure of amount right now, somone mentioned $600 or you do NOT get a booth!

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
Yes indeed - a term minted right here at Accurate Reloading!!

Matt,

SCI makes compulsory to pay a donation - not sure of amount right now, somone mentioned $600 or you do NOT get a booth!

I have explained it to you numerous times but you keep dragging it back up year after year.... pretending it was never explained to you sufficiently.

SO THERE IS A RATIONAL/GOOD EXPLANATION FOR A "COMPULSORY" DONATION?? i thought compulsory and donation were mutually exclusive terms. can't wait to be enlightened. and how is it that DSC doesn't seem to need a "compulsory" donation to stay in business?? fewer officer perks??

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
SO THERE IS A RATIONAL/GOOD EXPLANATION FOR A "COMPULSORY" DONATION?? i thought compulsory and donation were mutually exclusive terms. can't wait to be enlightened. and how is it that DSC doesn't seem to need a "compulsory" donation to stay in business?? fewer officer perks??

I'm not sure how much simpler it could be. Exhibitors display their wares and services at the SCI show as a form of advertisement for their company. To the best of my knowledge, most all forms of advertisement requires payment; just as if you were putting an advertisement in Sports Afield or Outdoor Life, etc. So, if you want a booth to advertise your business, you have to pay for the space and exposure. SCI must pay the convention center for the space it provides to the exhibitors, therefore charges the exhibitors in turn, and the intent is to make a profit to support the SCI mission. SCI would rather have a donation than outright cash because the auctions are one of the main draws to get people to come to the show. It really wouldn't be much of an entertaining auction if you were biding on cash paid by the vendors instead of a hunt, rifle, jewelry, etc. and there would be no way for SCI to raise funds in the process. For instance, if all the exhibitors just paid $600 instead of donating hunts, every item on the auction program would be the chance to bid on, well ... $600!

So the real question is, as a vendor, does the donation given inorder to exhibit at the show, generate enough business to be a sound advertising investment? If it doesn't, I wouldn't participate. If it does, I would. It's that simple. Just a business decision as to participate or not. No one forces any business to attend the show. But if you want the exposure and direct, concentrated access to the people who are motivated and financially capable of purchasing an expensive safari, rifle, jewelry, etc, it just doesn't happen for free.

Well said Todd!

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
SO THERE IS A RATIONAL/GOOD EXPLANATION FOR A "COMPULSORY" DONATION?? i thought compulsory and donation were mutually exclusive terms. can't wait to be enlightened. and how is it that DSC doesn't seem to need a "compulsory" donation to stay in business?? fewer officer perks??

I'm not sure how much simpler it could be. Exhibitors display their wares and services at the SCI show as a form of advertisement for their company. To the best of my knowledge, most all forms of advertisement requires payment; just as if you were putting an advertisement in Sports Afield or Outdoor Life, etc. So, if you want a booth to advertise your business, you have to pay for the space and exposure. SCI must pay the convention center for the space it provides to the exhibitors, therefore charges the exhibitors in turn, and the intent is to make a profit to support the SCI mission. SCI would rather have a donation than outright cash because the auctions are one of the main draws to get people to come to the show. It really wouldn't be much of an entertaining auction if you were biding on cash paid by the vendors instead of a hunt, rifle, jewelry, etc. and there would be no way for SCI to raise funds in the process. For instance, if all the exhibitors just paid $600 instead of donating hunts, every item on the auction program would be the chance to bid on, well ... $600!

So the real question is, as a vendor, does the donation given inorder to exhibit at the show, generate enough business to be a sound advertising investment? If it doesn't, I wouldn't participate. If it does, I would. It's that simple. Just a business decision as to participate or not. No one forces any business to attend the show. But if you want the exposure and direct, concentrated access to the people who are motivated and financially capable of purchasing an expensive safari, rifle, jewelry, etc, it just doesn't happen for free.

Todd,

exhibitors are already paying for the space they use.

Why require them to "donate" something?

I was told by one exhibitor that the donations got you points that allowed you to get on the show floor, but if you wished, you could pay the donation as cash.

Since the donation has more value than what the donor has in it, and you can write it off on your taxes as a business expense, you would be pretty foolish to give $600 extra (and I am not sure that is the actual amount) instead of donating something you have $300 in, and recoup the other $300 as a tax write off.

Not to mention, I understand there are a lot of people waiting to get in to the convention as exhibitors.

I will admit the system has lots of flaws, and that it is abused.

I will also admit that SCI leadership has often been a joke.

But it seems to me that a lot of folks here seem to attack the wrong thing- compulsory donation, if you will, instead of trying to reform SCI. Saying go to DSC is not going to change the wrong headed top cats at SCI until DSC is bigger than SCI. It may happen, but somehow, I suspect that as soon as DSC gets as big as SCI, they will have the same petty corruption and bad behavior. Unfortunately, it is the human condition.

As long as I have fun at the SCI show, I will keep going. When it stops being fun, I will quit. I may well go to DSC too, one of these days, its just that more of the folks I go to meet are at SCI and not DSC.

I have to agree with the one poster who said that there seems to be a certain group of DSC supporters (by no means a majority) who rather than just state they enjoy DSC, they have to state how evil SCI is. It is sad.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
SO THERE IS A RATIONAL/GOOD EXPLANATION FOR A "COMPULSORY" DONATION?? i thought compulsory and donation were mutually exclusive terms. can't wait to be enlightened. and how is it that DSC doesn't seem to need a "compulsory" donation to stay in business?? fewer officer perks??

I'm not sure how much simpler it could be. Exhibitors display their wares and services at the SCI show as a form of advertisement for their company. To the best of my knowledge, most all forms of advertisement requires payment; just as if you were putting an advertisement in Sports Afield or Outdoor Life, etc. So, if you want a booth to advertise your business, you have to pay for the space and exposure. SCI must pay the convention center for the space it provides to the exhibitors, therefore charges the exhibitors in turn, and the intent is to make a profit to support the SCI mission. SCI would rather have a donation than outright cash because the auctions are one of the main draws to get people to come to the show. It really wouldn't be much of an entertaining auction if you were biding on cash paid by the vendors instead of a hunt, rifle, jewelry, etc. and there would be no way for SCI to raise funds in the process. For instance, if all the exhibitors just paid $600 instead of donating hunts, every item on the auction program would be the chance to bid on, well ... $600!

So the real question is, as a vendor, does the donation given inorder to exhibit at the show, generate enough business to be a sound advertising investment? If it doesn't, I wouldn't participate. If it does, I would. It's that simple. Just a business decision as to participate or not. No one forces any business to attend the show. But if you want the exposure and direct, concentrated access to the people who are motivated and financially capable of purchasing an expensive safari, rifle, jewelry, etc, it just doesn't happen for free.

Todd,

exhibitors are already paying for the space they use.

Why require them to "donate" something?

. . . and to make the donation a pre-condition to getting a booth slot that is not just outside the bathroom or located 6.5 miles from the front door?

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
SO THERE IS A RATIONAL/GOOD EXPLANATION FOR A "COMPULSORY" DONATION?? i thought compulsory and donation were mutually exclusive terms. can't wait to be enlightened. and how is it that DSC doesn't seem to need a "compulsory" donation to stay in business?? fewer officer perks??

I'm not sure how much simpler it could be. Exhibitors display their wares and services at the SCI show as a form of advertisement for their company. To the best of my knowledge, most all forms of advertisement requires payment; just as if you were putting an advertisement in Sports Afield or Outdoor Life, etc. So, if you want a booth to advertise your business, you have to pay for the space and exposure. SCI must pay the convention center for the space it provides to the exhibitors, therefore charges the exhibitors in turn, and the intent is to make a profit to support the SCI mission. SCI would rather have a donation than outright cash because the auctions are one of the main draws to get people to come to the show. It really wouldn't be much of an entertaining auction if you were biding on cash paid by the vendors instead of a hunt, rifle, jewelry, etc. and there would be no way for SCI to raise funds in the process. For instance, if all the exhibitors just paid $600 instead of donating hunts, every item on the auction program would be the chance to bid on, well ... $600!

So the real question is, as a vendor, does the donation given inorder to exhibit at the show, generate enough business to be a sound advertising investment? If it doesn't, I wouldn't participate. If it does, I would. It's that simple. Just a business decision as to participate or not. No one forces any business to attend the show. But if you want the exposure and direct, concentrated access to the people who are motivated and financially capable of purchasing an expensive safari, rifle, jewelry, etc, it just doesn't happen for free.

Todd,

exhibitors are already paying for the space they use.

Why require them to "donate" something?

Saeed,

As we have discussed before and I suppose we will again here, it all comes down to putting on the show for the mutual benefit of both the exhibitors and attendees (potential customers). I don't have all the answers for what SCI National does or does not do. But I can give you my personal perspective from a Chapter level. I am one of the guys that solicits donations from exhibitors and outfitters for our chapter fundraiser. I, like the vast majority, donate my time and efforts in hopes that we will put on a banquet that is both interesting for the attendees and the vendors. For the attendees to enjoy the show and banquet, they want interesting items to bid on in hopes of winning a great trip, gun, piece of art, etc. Sure, they have the opportunity to speak directly with the vendors and book hunts or purchase these items outright. However, many enjoy the excitement of the auction and the chance to win. Maybe a bit like gambling. Ever wonder why the SCI show is held in Reno or Vegas where gambling is legal? It isn't my thing at all, but some enjoy it.

Back on point. I can tell you that every year as we work to put the fundraiser together, we sweat the details concerning what is being offered at the banquet. Our chapter has had a 3 day event for the past several years whereby exhibitors set up a booth in the Grapevine, TX BassPro. Although BassPro doesn't charge us for the space as does the convention centers for the SCI National and DSC shows, we do spend quite a bit of money promoting the event. We purchase billboards, airtime on the local radio stations, newspaper adds, etc. We do this so that it becomes worthwhile for the exhibitors to come to Grapevine, spend their time and money, and advertise. If we didn't make an attempt to draw a targeted audience to the store for them, asking them to come and exhibit would be disingenuous IMO.

But asking the attendees to come, purchase a table, which never covers the cost of putting on the dinner as we have to commit to a certain number of meals in excess of the expected attendees, hold an open bar, etc, requires something in return for them as well. What do we have to offer them? Well ... if we've done our jobs correctly, we have an interesting line up of items to bid on in the auction! It's a trade off. So, without requiring a donation, in exchange for a booth space, what other method would you suggest we use to assure we have an auction program worthy of asking the attendees to spend their time and money attending in the first place?

It just gets old listening to you and guys like JDollar, continually criticize without offering anything positive in exchange. Maybe there are guys attempting to game the system on the national level. I don't know as I don't run in those circles. But I know all the guys, at least in our chapter, put the time and effort into producing these shows because we want everyone who attends to have a good time, get some benefit for participating (both vendor and attendee), and raise some money to support the SCI mission. Further, I realize you like to criticize the SCI mission by asking what projects the organization is involved in on the ground in Africa. Those projects do exist but more importantly, IMO, SCI acts as an advocacy group on behalf of hunters when our rights are threatened. An example is SCI's involvement over the past several years in attempting to help the hunters who have polar bear trophies being prohibited by USFWS from import.

Saeed, I'm not going to change your mind and you aren't going to change my mind. But we set up our fundraisers in a similar manner as does SCI national. And I know for a fact that requiring the donations in exchange for a booth space is nothing sinister. Simply, it is an attempt to make and interesting show (ie. auction) for the attendees to enjoy. And in the process, if it works the way it should, the auction purchaser would ideally give the outfitter repeat business, upgrade the hunt, or bring additional hunters. It doesn't always go that way, but we can't guarantee the outcome of doing business, only provide the environment for it to work.

To that last point, I'll offer just a personal story. I purchased a black bear hunt in Idaho from the Flying B Ranch at our auction last year. I had a friend who was to come along paying full price. He was not able to go relatively late in the game due to emergency surgery to address returning cancer. In order to make up for the outfitter not getting what they bargained for, I purchased a sidelock 28 gage shotgun after a session on their sporting clays range. I did so in hopes that it would make the donation they gave us a bit more beneficial to them since the revenues from my friend's hunt were lost. Contrary to the way you and Jerry continue to make us out, there are those of us in SCI who are attempting to do things on the up and up. Personally, I haven't seen anything contrary to that statement.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
SO THERE IS A RATIONAL/GOOD EXPLANATION FOR A "COMPULSORY" DONATION?? i thought compulsory and donation were mutually exclusive terms. can't wait to be enlightened. and how is it that DSC doesn't seem to need a "compulsory" donation to stay in business?? fewer officer perks??

I'm not sure how much simpler it could be. Exhibitors display their wares and services at the SCI show as a form of advertisement for their company. To the best of my knowledge, most all forms of advertisement requires payment; just as if you were putting an advertisement in Sports Afield or Outdoor Life, etc. So, if you want a booth to advertise your business, you have to pay for the space and exposure. SCI must pay the convention center for the space it provides to the exhibitors, therefore charges the exhibitors in turn, and the intent is to make a profit to support the SCI mission. SCI would rather have a donation than outright cash because the auctions are one of the main draws to get people to come to the show. It really wouldn't be much of an entertaining auction if you were biding on cash paid by the vendors instead of a hunt, rifle, jewelry, etc. and there would be no way for SCI to raise funds in the process. For instance, if all the exhibitors just paid $600 instead of donating hunts, every item on the auction program would be the chance to bid on, well ... $600!

So the real question is, as a vendor, does the donation given inorder to exhibit at the show, generate enough business to be a sound advertising investment? If it doesn't, I wouldn't participate. If it does, I would. It's that simple. Just a business decision as to participate or not. No one forces any business to attend the show. But if you want the exposure and direct, concentrated access to the people who are motivated and financially capable of purchasing an expensive safari, rifle, jewelry, etc, it just doesn't happen for free.

Todd,

exhibitors are already paying for the space they use.

Why require them to "donate" something?

. . . and to make the donation a pre-condition to getting a booth slot that is not just outside the bathroom or located 6.5 miles from the front door?

Mike,

See my response to Saeed. Simply, there is a price to participate in return for getting the direct exposure to the targeted market. And one of the things that draws the target market is the auctions. Without donations, there is no auction. Without the auctions, there would be fewer people in attendance. With fewer people in attendance, there would be a smaller target market for the vendors. And on and on and round and round!

Edited: Why does the full back page or the full inside cover advertisement in a prime outdoor magazine, or any magazine for that matter, cost more than a 1/4 page black and white add buried in the classified section?

Mike,

To take it a step further, if there is so much space available, and so many exhibitors, some one is going to get the spot near the bathrooms and or further away from the entrance. Let me ask you a question. If you, personally, Mike Jines, were the guy responsible for making out the floor plan and placing exhibitors in their respective booths, by what method would you allocate the better spots? Same as the magazine advertisement placements? Who gets the best spots? The companies that pay for the prime location do!

I can see it now. One outfitter pays the minimum $600 fee with no donation and gets the booth next to the entrance while another donates a $25,000 hunt and gets the bathroom at the very back of the venue. Yea baby, now there would be some serious bitching over that one!!

The debate on compulsory donation :
A donation is voluntary action , given in goodwill if you make it compulsory the goodwill is lost and as you have observed can turn into bitter resentment.
No one disputes the need for funds to run a successful club or organization , but then make the booth cost X and donations voluntary , but to arrive at the convention to exhibit after paying close on $10 000-00 for our booths (4) then be told to donate a further $600-00 by forced no option is a contradiction in terms. What we are finding is that once a perceived cost versus benefit / enjoyment / appreciation level deteriorates then questions will be raised. What we are seeing here further is both attendees and exhibitors questioning the value to cost ratio.
We arrived fully booked for 2013 on our elephant and buffalo hunts ( we don't have cat quota in Botswana ) , and with no 2014 to sell in Botswana we were fortunate , for if we relied on the attendance of Reno we would have been very disappointed due to low attendance and enquiries. Our Mozambique , Tanzania , Namibian and South African operations received very few enquiries .
There were obviously exhibitors that experienced increased traffic following the news of closures in Botswana and Zambia and we are also aware of a few exhibitors who radically increased Lion and Elephant hunts in open countries on the back of this news , supply and demand.
The bottom line though is that there is ever increasing dissatisfaction with the results of the SCI convention from both sides.
I must mention that the staff of the SCI convention were outstanding friendly and helpful , Angie Wild , Mike Wirth etc did a great job to ensure a well run show. The food courts were slightly better and with the reduced floor traffic it was easier to move around.
However in contrast to past shows where lines formed in the isles to make enquiries , I observed very few busy booths including the normally busy exhibitors , at no time did I have to wait to chat to one of the exhibitors I went to see.
The question was put to us that we should not moan but make suggestions , is that not like trying to change government , it takes a ground swell to change bureaucratic organizations and this may just be what we are experiencing , as a past die hard SCI supporter with little left to gain given our closure in Botswana from next year , it is simply a matter of stating the facts when others may be to intimidated or scared to upset SCI.

quote:

Originally posted by Safaris Botswana Bound:
The debate on compulsory donation :
A donation is voluntary action , given in goodwill if you make it compulsory the goodwill is lost and as you have observed can turn into bitter resentment.
No one disputes the need for funds to run a successful club or organization , but then make the booth cost X and donations voluntary , but to arrive at the convention to exhibit after paying close on $10 000-00 for our booths (4) then be told to donate a further $600-00 by forced no option is a contradiction in terms. What we are finding is that once a perceived cost versus benefit / enjoyment / appreciation level deteriorates then questions will be raised. What we are seeing here further is both attendees and exhibitors questioning the value to cost ratio.
We arrived fully booked for 2013 on our elephant and buffalo hunts ( we don't have cat quota in Botswana ) , and with no 2014 to sell in Botswana we were fortunate , for if we relied on the attendance of Reno we would have been very disappointed due to low attendance and enquiries. Our Mozambique , Tanzania , Namibian and South African operations received very few enquiries .
There were obviously exhibitors that experienced increased traffic following the news of closures in Botswana and Zambia and we are also aware of a few exhibitors who radically increased Lion and Elephant hunts in open countries on the back of this news , supply and demand.
The bottom line though is that there is ever increasing dissatisfaction with the results of the SCI convention from both sides.
I must mention that the staff of the SCI convention were outstanding friendly and helpful , Angie Wild , Mike Wirth etc did a great job to ensure a well run show. The food courts were slightly better and with the reduced floor traffic it was easier to move around.
However in contrast to past shows where lines formed in the isles to make enquiries , I observed very few busy booths including the normally busy exhibitors , at no time did I have to wait to chat to one of the exhibitors I went to see.
The question was put to us that we should not moan but make suggestions , is that not like trying to change government , it takes a ground swell to change bureaucratic organizations and this may just be what we are experiencing , as a past die hard SCI supporter with little left to gain given our closure in Botswana from next year , it is simply a matter of stating the facts when others may be to intimidated or scared to upset SCI.

But no one forces any exhibitor to exhibit at ANY of the shows. If a compulsory donation is something that doesn't sit well with your company, why participate? If it's that bad, why is there a significant waiting list for exhibitors wanting into the show? Look, the shows are not about "good will" but rather about business. Business for the exhibitors as well as the club. If you owned a tire store, you can generate a hell of a lot of "good will" by giving away free tires everyday. But business requires you to sell the tires at a profit in order to stay in business. The exhibitors are hoping to book hunts, sell guns, other items of value, or at least generate interest in future sales by being seen and keeping the company name in front of the potential customers, (advertising if you will). If you arrived at SCI Reno fully booked for 2013 with nothing to sell for 2014, my question has to be ... WHY? Why participate as this doesn't seem to be a good financial decision in terms of expected returns! If your response is that you participated under those circumstances inorder to keep your place on the floor for future shows, I have respond with; EXACTLY!! Somehow, you are realizing or at least perceiving a financial benefit from participating in the show as it is currently run. If not, you wouldn't continue to participate, right? But, in the long view, if you can continue to arrive at the show, year in and year out, fully booked, why do so; especially if you object to the procedures?

I suppose the issue is the booth payment and then a required donation. I say this is a matter of perception in that some are viewing it as X amount for the booth, and then being forced to donate. Not so! The price of the booth is X amount and a donation. That is known going in and not something sprung on the exhibitors at the last minute!

Again, it seems that the concept of attendees desiring interesting items to bid on in the auctions, which by all accounts is the primary source of funds being raised by these shows which are simply fund raisers in the first place, is being lost in the discussion. Without donations for the auctions, there would be no auctions. Without the auctions, there would be fewer of the target audience for the vendors to "target". Again, round and round we go.

I'll put it out there again, if you are THE guy responsible for putting the auctions together, what method would you use to assure, not hope for, but assure, that there are interesting items of value in the auctions? And if you are THE guy responsible for assigning booth space, by what method would you determine who gets the prime spots and who gets the back of the venue? These just don't seem to be legitimate grips to me guys.

However, I will say that I did hear of what I would call legitimate grips at Reno this year. Specifically, a major ammunition manufacturer, who has in the past, as well as currently at this show, made major donations, was put near the rear of one of the rooms in a less than prime spot. I understand some hell was raised over that one, and rightly so I would think.

Since I've gotten on my soap box tonight, against my better judgement I might add! There is one other item I think worthy of mentioning as well and that is the issue that my friend Buzz brought up concerning a certain un-reputable operator overvaluing his dotation at something like $66,000 for a plains game / leopard hunt. Those practices going unchallenged also would appear to be legitimate sources of contention IMO.

That's it guys. I'm done now. I'm stepping out of further comment and putting on my Nomex flight suit!!

Todd,

I appreciate you taking the time to explain it from your side.

I have nothing but praise for the individual chapters of SCI.

Would you be kind enough to explain to us what you do with the money you get from donations please?

Personally, I have absolutely nothing against donations, as long as I know they going for good causes.

We have asked here so many times for someone to show us what SCI has actually done, in monetary terms, for African conservation.

I actually sat on the computer and did some Google searches, and came up with less than $70,000 for several years.

Last year, we collected about $200,000 for specific conservation projects in Africa.

This year, we have already earmarked about $50,000 for a project in Zimbabwe.

We don't advertize this, but the people paying the money know exactly where it is going.

SCI is great for collecting the donations, but as members, and those who have donated, aren't we entitled to know where it is going?

Saeed,

Well, it seems we are getting further from the topic of whether or not individual exhibitors had a good show and who booked what and we have come back round again to the uses of SCI proceeds. You and I have had this discussion before. Regardless of how many times it is explained, you continue to focus on what "on the ground" projects in Africa, SCI supports. The fact is that SCI is primarily an advocacy organization, not a "project" organization. A special interest group lobbying lawmakers to vote for our interests, supporting or initiating law suits to support our interests. I already gave you an example of how SCI National has been active in lobbying for the importation of the 40+ polar bear trophies being held up by USFWS. Last I heard, there appears to be some positive movement toward getting this specific issue resolved. SCI is a major influence at CITIES. SCI was active in numerous legal cases across the Western US regarding wolf seasons. Did not the Minister of Wildlife from Zambia who just shut down hunting there, attend the Reno convention, speaking with and interacting with those who have the best chance of influencing her decisions going forward? I like DSC as well but she did not attend and meet with the powers of influence in Dallas!! Will she be influenced by our message of conservation and re-open hunting in Zambia? I hope so, but the important part is that our interests for continued hunting was represented by SCI and will at least provide contrast to the support and influence she receives from the anti hunting special interests groups working against us.

If you want to know what our specific chapter does with monies collected from our fundraiser each year, I'll be glad to tell you. First, we are a rather small chapter so once expenses of the event are paid, we usually only have something in the range of $100,000 remaining for the year. A portion of that goes to National to support the advocacy initiatives outlined in the examples above. Our primary focus on a local level is supporting the local "Hunters for the Hungry" and food bank programs; if your family is starving, receiving support from a group of hunters would likely cause you to have a more favorable opinion of our activities as well as garner support for the community that sees how hunters support those less fortunate. We try to send a local teacher to the American Wilderness Leadership School each year whereby a local teacher is given skills and support necessary to advocate outdoor activities such as hunting, fishing, shooting, etc in the local classroom (this provides a contrast for the kids to consider when encountering anti consumptive activity initiatives in the public school systems), and we conduct several "Sensory Safari" events whereby blind children are given the chance to "see" what animals look like through hands on experiences with trophy mounts. May not sound like much but 2 years ago, we held a Sensory Safari in the Texas State Capital building for a large school for the blind. Watching a kid's face light up when he or she first "sees" an animal is pretty cool. These experiences give the opportunity to show the public, who often times are misinformed about what hunters are and do, a more realistic viewpoint to consider concerning hunters commitment towards conservation. Will those perceptions be changed enough to influence the legal battles at the state and local levels that are being waged against hunting? I can't answer that 100% but I think it is better than allowing our group to be painted as bunch of bloodthirsty killers as the anti's would have the public believe!

How often on the pages of AR do we hear someone make a call for efforts to educate the general public about what we as hunters actually stand and work for? How often is there a call to make an effort to oppose the view points espoused by Hollywood? How do we combat the forces that are working to end hunting? I say it is by attempting to educate the misinformed and show them we are not bloodthirsty killers but rather the main driving force of conservation. And this has to be done at the local level with small events as well as at the national and international level with large events. IMO, that is the purpose of SCI and it's the reason I'm a member and involved. I appreciate that your and or your organization is collecting funds and putting them to use directly on the African continent. That is certainly needed work. But how much direct support have you and your organization provided in the court systems when something like an attempt to halt the wolf harvest in Montana occurred? We need all of these efforts as a whole to defend our hunting interests. I'm a life member and regular member of several organizations that I believe promote my interests; including SCI, DSC, The NRA, and others.

But I thought we were speaking of the recent show and who booked what? Then it devolved into another bashing of SCI's methods for conducting the show. Now we are discussing the purpose of SCI itself. Let's stay with the topic of the show for a moment. Again, no exhibitor is forced to attend. There is a waiting list to participate. Why? Well, because SCI, as well as DSC, are the best opportunities to attract the target audience most likely to purchase the types of goods and services offered at the shows. If the price of admission is too high, as an exhibitor, don't participate. Or better yet, if hell bent on participating in a show, instead of exhibiting at SCI, come and exhibit at the Texas Trophy Hunters show in August. You won't have to donate a hunt as part of the admission because there aren't any auctions to draw in that certain target crowd. And you can have your pick among the whitetail deer bubba types (of which I count myself ) to try and sell that expensive elephant hunt to!

I said I was done commenting but since I was challenged concerning where the local chapter money is spent, I felt compelled to comment further. Now, I will try to butt out of further discussion and leave it to you guys.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
you would be pretty foolish to give $600 extra (and I am not sure that is the actual amount) instead of donating something you have $300 in, and recoup the other $300 as a tax write off.

Not to mention, I understand there are a lot of people waiting to get in to the convention as exhibitors.

You can't donate something of low value. Usually it's something you have way more than $600 in.

You and Todd got one point right. People want in. It's business. You want to exhibit, you donate something. It's the rule. You don't want to donate a hunt or a gun or jewelry? Ok, donate $600 instead. In light of the overall cost of exhibiting at SCI $600 is nothing.

You don't want to donate, you don't want to pay for the right to exhibit, please step aside, there is a line of people who think its worth it.

Is it expensive? Hell yes it is. Especially to get in the first time. Your donation to be considered for the very few spaces that come open needs to be substantial.

Why? Supply and demand. People keep paying for the few open spots. When it comes to a point where it is not worth it, people will stop donating and stop attending!

Now, this is simply my view from the exhibitor side. It's a financial decision having nothing to do with politics or conservation.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
Edited: Why does the full back page or the full inside cover advertisement in a prime outdoor magazine, or any magazine for that matter, cost more than a 1/4 page black and white add buried in the classified section?

And how does the magazine price its advertising, you pay based on where you want your ad to appear and how big the ad will be. A person can elect to pay the freight or not based on the value they place on the ad given the advertising rates charged to any vendor wishing to run an ad. Why wouldn't a convention work the same way? Want a booth that is 10x12 in location X, here is the price, want a booth that is 10x24 in location Y here is the price, etc. Why inject something as subjective as donated hunts and merchandise into the process, all it does is make the process less transparent. My guess is that vendors would have far less objection to a rate schedule for booth size and location that is transparent and equally applied across all vendors than they do to the current process that seems to be more than a bit opaque.