quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:

So now anyone booking a hunt MUST become an SCI member???

If anyone EVER had any doubts that SCI is run by a bunch of UTTER idiots, this should remind him otherwise!!

And the vote WAS unanimous!

I would like to see the exact presentation and wording of the vote. At least one who was there says it was not discussed. I wasn't there, I have no idea.

Larry

This is getting worse and worse!

So they had a UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT on it, without Discussing it?

It must have been tagged onto other subject - just like the government does?!

I don't know that what I heard was factual.

It could have been buried with other things.

Looks like some agent planted the seed and others cooperated before this became public. oh well.

I agree, I am not sure what is worse, SCI even entertaining doing this or the fact that 147 board members voted to do this without one having the courage to speak up and denounce the action.

I'm just amazed about 147 members on the board!

Well, at least they won't be exhibiting at the SCI convention...

Karl

They do not want to have to make a compulsory donation or pay a premium for booth location.

If the outfitters don't ban together and shun the SCI convention and stop advertising with them then they are cutting their own throats. Instead, the outfitters should agree to show at other venues like the Dallas Safari Club and the NRA National Convention. Even if the outfitters all agree to show at a venue that is currently small, once they do, that chosen venue would grow immediately to accommodate them.

quote:

With this in mind, we have made the decision out of respect to exhibitors such as your Company to not exhibit at the Las Vegas convention with SCI Outdoors.

Of course they did otherwise no outfitter would PAY SCI a premium (donation and fees) to a competitor exhibiting next to them.

quote:

Secondly, we seriously doubt you'll experience a migration of your customers over to SCI Outdoors.

That would only be true if the customers who purchase at the conventions always return to the conventions to purchase. SCI Outdoors will be sending targeted advertising to ALL members continually and incessantly with the express purpose of getting the members to book through SCI Outdoors. Would any outfitter like to volunteer his client list to any other outfitter? Of course not! But that is what is going to happen. Because, if any person buys a hunt at the convention, they are guaranteed to become members and guaranteed to be targets for future SCI Outdoors advertising and promotions. If you don't understand the importance of this then just imagine what it would be like for Cabelas or Bass Pro Shops to have the entire SCI membership mailing and emailing lists plus free advertising in the member magazine. Bottom line is that any outfitter booking a hunt at the convention can expect his clients to be targeted over and over again by SCI Outdoors, a huge competitor.

quote:

This sport and industry is small, based on trust, and people enjoy doing business with people they like and have previous history.

This contradicts the statement that the people at SCI, "seriously doubt you'll experience a migration of your customers over to SCI Outdoors". If the industry is small then the outfitters who currently exhibit and advertise in the SCI rag already have that "small industry". Where does SCI Outdoors expect to get it clients from unless it plans to take that "small industry" the outfitters are already servicing?

quote:

Originally posted by DCS Member:
I'm just amazed about 147 members on the board!

"Birds of a feather, always flock together"

Come to mind.

Ever wonder why SCI is so screwed up??

What is next - buy up concessions and conducting their own hunts. I get the idea that they want to have the controlling stake in everything involved in hunting. Sad that they don't allow the sun to shine over others.

quote:

Originally posted by Jaco Human:
What is next - buy up concessions and conducting their own hunts. I get the idea that they want to have the controlling stake in everything involved in hunting. Sad that they don't allow the sun to shine over others.

I can just imagine it.

Some of those so called PH who proudly scream PROUD TO BE MEMBER OF SCI!
being employed to do what they do best.


That is provide canned hunts for the glory seekers which SCI seems to cater for and support tirelessly

This is getting more and more confusing here. It appears they are following the NRA's lead and they are crucified but the NRA is still supported, am I missing something. I would venture if SCI started a "guns only show" they would be chastised about stepping on the NRA'S turf. I am not happy about the "booking etc and the required membership" deal but that said many other org require you to obtain a membership at their banquets not so SCI.

quote:

Originally posted by Die Ou Jagter:
This is getting more and more confusing here. It appears they are following the NRA's lead and they are crucified but the NRA is still supported, am I missing something. I would venture if SCI started a "guns only show" they would be chastised about stepping on the NRA'S turf. I am not happy about the "booking etc and the required membership" deal but that said many other org require you to obtain a membership at their banquets not so SCI.

I cannot speak for anyone else, but to me the offensive aspect of this is that they are competing with their members and it puts the organization in a conflict of interest with its members. It would be akin to the National Automobile Dealers Association deciding to open a business like CarMax. Or the NRA deciding they would open an online gun sales business akin to Davidsons or Cheaper Than Dirt. In my view, as a non-profit association you do not decide to go into a business that directly competes with a substantial segment of your membership. Not to mention all the ways in which this can be abused. Will there be those that get preferential notice of hunt "specials"? Will there be preference given to certain outfitters over others? How will the organization resolve disputes between itself and its members over bookings? And on and on. By doing business with its members and competing with its members, I still have to wonder how not one of the 147 voting members present did not have the good sense and courage to stand up and speak out against this. Again, very disappointing in my view.

I have typed a couple of responses to this and deleted them.


Suffice to say that I am stunned, shocked and sickened.

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Die Ou Jagter:
This is getting more and more confusing here. It appears they are following the NRA's lead and they are crucified but the NRA is still supported, am I missing something. I would venture if SCI started a "guns only show" they would be chastised about stepping on the NRA'S turf. I am not happy about the "booking etc and the required membership" deal but that said many other org require you to obtain a membership at their banquets not so SCI.

I cannot speak for anyone else, but to me the offensive aspect of this is that they are competing with their members and it puts the organization in a conflict of interest with its members. It would be akin to the National Automobile Dealers Association deciding to open a business like CarMax. Or the NRA deciding they would open an online gun sales business akin to Davidsons or Cheaper Than Dirt. In my view, as a non-profit association you do not decide to go into a business that directly competes with a substantial segment of your membership. Not to mention all the ways in which this can be abused. Will there be those that get preferential notice of hunt "specials"? Will there be preference given to certain outfitters over others? How will the organization resolve disputes between itself and its members over bookings? And on and on. By doing business with its members and competing with its members, I still have to wonder how not one of the 147 voting members present did not have the good sense and courage to stand up and speak out against this. Again, very disappointing in my view.[/QUOTE
Mike:

I am fairly certain that I saw in one of the numerous e mails that I received on this matter that one Board member says he never heard of any if this . I am traveling and only have my I phone. It is tough for me to verify. I will look when I get home.

quote:

Originally posted by Die Ou Jagter:
This is getting more and more confusing here. It appears they are following the NRA's lead and they are crucified but the NRA is still supported, am I missing something. I would venture if SCI started a "guns only show" they would be chastised about stepping on the NRA'S turf. I am not happy about the "booking etc and the required membership" deal but that said many other org require you to obtain a membership at their banquets not so SCI.

Not quite the same. SCIO is in direct competition with those who bring in money for SCI at the convention. Agents and outfitters are funding SCI with donations and ad dollars which will only strengthen our competition.

Why would we donate? I thought this money was for conservation not to strengthen a competitor?

By the way, where did the money for the start up come from?

* Did they get a loan from a bank?
* Did they loan themselves money from SCI?
* Did they donate themselves money?

In any case, money was obtained from somewhere. If SCIO fails, who is left to pay the note?

Is SCI responsible for the debt? If not then who?

I did check my e mails. I have an e mail from a chapter president that indicates that the Board never approved of this as he never heard of it. He further alleges that the executive committee is behind this.

I took this to mean he was there. I could me misinterpreting .

The blokes it's going to hurt the most (and they really do have my sympathy) are the guys in the industry who have supported SCI for years, exhibited at the convention and made all those donations and who are now being shafted by the very people they've been supporting.

Whoever dreamt this up should be bloody well ashamed of themselves!

quote:

Originally posted by Grenadier:
... Because, if any person buys a hunt at the convention, they are guaranteed to become members and guaranteed to be targets for future SCI Outdoors advertising and promotions. ...

One can't attend the convention unless one is a member. So, you are already a target for all advertisements etc..

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
I did check my e mails. I have an e mail from a chapter president that indicates that the Board never approved of this as he never heard of it. He further alleges that the executive committee is behind this.

I took this to mean he was there. I could me misinterpreting .

Is there a "consent agenda" in SCI board meetings? That could explain the unanimous approval if this was part of it.

quote:

Originally posted by tanks:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by larryshores:
I did check my e mails. I have an e mail from a chapter president that indicates that the Board never approved of this as he never heard of it. He further alleges that the executive committee is behind this.

I took this to mean he was there. I could me misinterpreting .

Is there a "consent agenda" in SCI board meetings? That could explain the unanimous approval if this was part of it.[/QUOTE
I suspect something like this is responsible for the unanimous vote .

Hey, just to clarify is SCI taking 15% of all exhibitors at the show or only the ones on the prefered list??

Seems to me the market will weed this out. Shouldn't a hunt be cheaper without this SCI involvement?

If an exhibitor goes to DSC they will have a market advantage.

Now all you outfitters and booking agents know what it feels like to be stabbed in the back!

465H&H

I think for outfitters it is a win. Gives more exposure and marketing to them.

For agents, it is a loss as SCI Outdoors would be competing against the agents.

Think of agents and SCI Outdoors as being sales reps. Outfitters wouldn't care whichever one books the jobs.

Now, if SCI Outdoors is also asking for exclusivity, then that changes things. The devil is in the details.

quote:

Originally posted by tanks:
I think for outfitters it is a win. Gives more exposure and marketing to them.

For agents, it is a loss as SCI Outdoors would be competing against the agents.

Think of agents and SCI Outdoors as being sales reps. Outfitters wouldn't care whichever one books the jobs.

Now, if SCI Outdoors is also asking for exclusivity, then that changes things. The devil is in the details.

That would be true, if and only if, all outfitters are treated equally. They will not. For a large segment of the outfitters and for most of the booking agents, it is a substantial negative.

quote:

Originally posted by tanks:
I think for outfitters it is a win. Gives more exposure and marketing to them.

For agents, it is a loss as SCI Outdoors would be competing against the agents.

Think of agents and SCI Outdoors as being sales reps. Outfitters wouldn't care whichever one books the jobs.

Now, if SCI Outdoors is also asking for exclusivity, then that changes things. The devil is in the details.

Any outfitter that thinks it's a win should (IMO) seek psychiatric help.

They could end up paying to exhibit, making a 'donation' and then losing a client that could have come to them who instead went to SCI and then they have to take the booking from SCI and then have to pay them a commission on the hunt that SCI stole from them...

SCI should provide every exhibitor with a free tin of vaseline so it won't hurt so much when they get shafted!

Even those who are not on the SCI preferred list will be in risk of losing clients to SCI........ The only people who gain from this is SCI....... which is nothing new.

All,

I think this is a pretty bad idea and they should rethink as well as rescind their proposed business SCI Outdoors. Honestly I view this as a real negative for our local chapter fundraiser. Good luck getting people to travel as vendors and donate if they aren't represented by SCIO. I'm doing what I can to see that happens. We'll see.

Brett

quote:

It is a similar problem in many of these so-called conservation organizations. It all ends up being about the leadership of the organization feathering their own nest. I dumped any involvement with RMEF and DU...

That's what I also found, first hand. Making stupid decisions, like here with SCI, is the result.

Why anyone would volunteer at an RMEF/DU/SCI/Wild Sheep auction or donate money to them is a mystery to me. You're doing nothing but becoming a metric to support an ego and acknowledge someone's "position". Do pushups instead, dig a hole, call your mother, or something that has value. You're not missing out on anything if you stop attending.

The ONLY thing that will change these places is dropping membership, advertisements and donations and excellent threads like this. It impacts the egos of the leadership, which is what it's all about in the first place.

The only tool SCI has with which to bludgeon, the exhibitors, the attendee's or anyone for that matter is the convention.

If outfitters, exhibitors in general and most importantly the attendee's boycott or just shy away, SCI will get the idea and perhaps walk this back. It is in fact, for SCI "Thor's Hammer"

I can say this; Outfitters who fear not being top tier for whatever reason, will, just by human nature, do whatever it takes to become and stay top tier. A few unsolicited hunts can go a long way for "some."

We must break the cycle.

We also, as International Sportsman need and advocacy group. Organizations do not exist in a vacuum. If DSC doesn't step up, The void will be filled.

Steve

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Die Ou Jagter:
This is getting more and more confusing here. It appears they are following the NRA's lead and they are crucified but the NRA is still supported, am I missing something. I would venture if SCI started a "guns only show" they would be chastised about stepping on the NRA'S turf. I am not happy about the "booking etc and the required membership" deal but that said many other org require you to obtain a membership at their banquets not so SCI.

I cannot speak for anyone else, but to me the offensive aspect of this is that they are competing with their members and it puts the organization in a conflict of interest with its members. It would be akin to the National Automobile Dealers Association deciding to open a business like CarMax. Or the NRA deciding they would open an online gun sales business akin to Davidsons or Cheaper Than Dirt. In my view, as a non-profit association you do not decide to go into a business that directly competes with a substantial segment of your membership. Not to mention all the ways in which this can be abused. Will there be those that get preferential notice of hunt "specials"? Will there be preference given to certain outfitters over others? How will the organization resolve disputes between itself and its members over bookings? And on and on. By doing business with its members and competing with its members, I still have to wonder how not one of the 147 voting members present did not have the good sense and courage to stand up and speak out against this. Again, very disappointing in my view.

+1

This is the crux of the matter. After this I will definitely never become a SCI member and will not participate in anything that can benefit them. Any outfitter that think he will get more business is wrong. He might get more business but he will make a lot less profit in the long run.

Thanks but no thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
.........
Whoever dreamt this up should be bloody well ashamed of themselves!

Since when have SCI big wigs ever been ashamed of any of their scams?
They wouldn't know shame if it slapped them across the chops!

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:

Since when have SCI big wigs ever been ashamed of any of their scams?
They wouldn't know shame if it slapped them across the chops!

Very true...... they've got more front than Sainsbury's!

Apparently SCI is already suffering from less membership dues - about 9% less last year than before.

May be it is time to stop renewing your memberships and see where that goes.

Also, as Steve mentioned, they get most of their money from the convention and their blackmail there.

So the less outfitters and PHs exhibiting there the louder our voices will be heard.

quote:

Originally posted by tanks:
I think for outfitters it is a win. Gives more exposure and marketing to them.

On the surface, it may seem that way. But the opposite is often true.

Any operator who has had to deal with clients from an agent who didn't know his ass from a hole in the ground can attest to this. An agent who doesn't know a lot about the operator can not effectively set the proper expectation of the hunt.

Clients who are ill informed, or "oversold" are often disappointed.

It is not fun to be the ph or guide hunting with a client who has overinflated expectations.

SCIO does not have the experience to sell these hunts. Their criteria for choosing an outfitter is based on the SCI points system.

They are recommending an outfitter because he donated a lot of hunts. Not because that operator is the right choice for the hunter.

This is the dividing line between an experienced agent who is attempting to match a client with the proper hunt and a agency trying to sell all the hunts for a particular operator.

Big difference. Huge difference actually.

Wendell, you are right in that the competence of the agent makes a big difference.

At this time however, we really don't know whether an organization that just started is competent or not.

I personally would not buy a hunt from them at this time as there is no history. A few years from now, if they prove their competence, maybe.

Also, I doubt an agent or an outfitter would turn away a client with $60K to spend on a hunt just because of overinflated expectations etc.. I was at the SCI convention and talked to a number of outfitters. Main concern was to sign people up, regardless of expectations.

I would be interested to know the name of the agent who tried to sell his business to SCI and the names of those agents who consulted with SCI as they did their research before launching this venture.

Apparently some agents are upset about the competition, yet it looks like SCI would have never considered this without other agents pointing it out and giving the SCI folks another way to make money and/or get free hunts.

Could Blair be involved?