With all the complaints by the vendors at SCI why don't you people just boycotte the show like the many vendors to the Eastern Sportsmen Show and shut it down. How much power do you have? JMO

Sounds like some are thinking about doing just that . . .

If I were an exhibitor I would be at both shows for fear of my clients making friends and booking with my competitors.

I guess the fight at Harrisburg was over a greater cause i e the Constution of the United States of America. That would trump the SCI show.

We won't do that because we support SCI and its conservation mission and believe in the good that the club does on behalf of hunters but also believe that a better, more equitable solution to some of the problems should be addressed.

FWIW - If ALL you exhibitors have problems with the SCI System, and I believe you do by the way, form a "spokesman commitee" and meet with SCI to address them. Invite your fellow exhibitors to participate with ideas via a survey or e-mail chat and get a consenses of things that need changing and proceed. In this day of easy social media exchanges this should not be all that hard. Posting comments on AR is interesting but will not get things you need changed accomplished. I truly feel SCI would listen and welcome some thoughts and ideas from you folks. If it will make their Show better and more productive and better received why wouldn't they listen?

And be sure to mention the fact that "treating the exhibitors a little better" might be a GOOD thing. If you don't try something like this, most likely things will not change by themselves. Good luck and good hunting.

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

An excellent post Larry. I also suggest that this committee communicate with the proper people. Convention director Libby Grimes is the staff person they should contact at World Headquarters (520) 620-1220. If they ask, she probably will set up a meeting with herself, the convention committee and executive director Phil DeLone.

Bill Quimby

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Sellers:
FWIW - If ALL you exhibitors have problems with the SCI System, and I believe you do by the way, form a "spokesman commitee" and meet with SCI to address them. Invite your fellow exhibitors to participate with ideas via a survey or e-mail chat and get a consenses of things that need changing and proceed. In this day of easy social media exchanges this should not be all that hard. Posting comments on AR is interesting but will not get things you need changed accomplished. I truly feel SCI would listen and welcome some thoughts and ideas from you folks. If it will make their Show better and more productive and better received why wouldn't they listen?

And be sure to mention the fact that "treating the exhibitors a little better" might be a GOOD thing. If you don't try something like this, most likely things will not change by themselves. Good luck and good hunting.

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

Great post. It's unfortunate that the thread title will probably discourage people from even opening it.

quote:

Originally posted by billrquimby:
An excellent post Larry. I also suggest that this committee communicate with the proper people. Convention director Libby Grimes is the staff person they should contact at World Headquarters (520) 620-1220. If they ask, she probably will set up a meeting with herself, the convention committee and executive director Phil DeLone.

Bill Quimby

Bill and others - have you read my post (listed below) in the other SCI / Exhibitors thread! This is the MAIN problem, and yes - Libby knows ALL about this issue listed below too. Outsiders might find it hard to believe, but SCI simple DOES NOTHING when exhibitors have issues/complaints, etc. And why would they - with a LONG LIST of folks waiting to become exhibitors, they simply provide lip service and then move on!!!! If you don't like it, someone else is willing to take your place. You guys can keep telling us who to contact, what to do, etc, but believe me - we have ALL done that already!!! Maybe Brett can get somewhere, so we are at least willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.


At SCI 2012 in Vegas - our booth (Danny McCallum Safaris) was immediately next to Johan Calitz's booth. Both long time exhibitors, and substantial donators over the years - wouldn't you say?

We were placed right next to the live auction room, and it was VERY LOUD - to say the least. Complaints were made, numerous SCI officials came to both booths - including the SCI president. Both Johan & Danny were promised (numerous times) on the spot - compensation for the 2013 convention. I know for a fact, because I was helping Danny with it at the booth.

Over the next few months Johan's group and us too, emailed SCI, emailed eachother, etc, etc - all for nothing! It was simply lip service given to TWO long-time exhibitors, and respected members, who both have made substantial donations over the years - simply to shut them up for the time being!

Promises were made, I can attest to that myself. Were any of those promises upheld - NOPE!!!!!!! So I suggest saving your time/breath, JMO.

Aaron - I would venture to say, and correct me if I am wrong, past compliants most likely have been aired by individuals or three or four exhibitors at best as you pointed out. If this were a coalition, if you will, of a large number of exhibitors working together with several "solutions", not just complaints the message would most likely be taken a little more serious by SCI. One, two or half dozen folks complaining in a group of 1,200 exhibitors is very easy to ignore. It is up to you'all, it's your butts out there on the line taking the shots. If I were involved, and I have been in other venues, I would be all over it.

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:

quote:

Originally posted by billrquimby:
An excellent post Larry. I also suggest that this committee communicate with the proper people. Convention director Libby Grimes is the staff person they should contact at World Headquarters (520) 620-1220. If they ask, she probably will set up a meeting with herself, the convention committee and executive director Phil DeLone.

Bill Quimby

Bill and others - have you read my post (listed below) in the other SCI / Exhibitors thread! This is the MAIN problem, and yes - Libby knows ALL about this issue listed below too. Outsiders might find it hard to believe, but SCI simple DOES NOTHING when exhibitors have issues/complaints, etc. And why would they - with a LONG LIST of folks waiting to become exhibitors, they simply provide lip service and then move on!!!! If you don't like it, someone else is willing to take your place. You guys can keep telling us who to contact, what to do, etc, but believe me - we have ALL done that already!!! Maybe Brett can get somewhere, so we are at least willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.


At SCI 2012 in Vegas - our booth (Danny McCallum Safaris) was immediately next to Johan Calitz's booth. Both long time exhibitors, and substantial donators over the years - wouldn't you say?

We were placed right next to the live auction room, and it was VERY LOUD - to say the least. Complaints were made, numerous SCI officials came to both booths - including the SCI president. Both Johan & Danny were promised (numerous times) on the spot - compensation for the 2013 convention. I know for a fact, because I was helping Danny with it at the booth.

Over the next few months Johan's group and us too, emailed SCI, emailed eachother, etc, etc - all for nothing! It was simply lip service given to TWO long-time exhibitors, and respected members, who both have made substantial donations over the years - simply to shut them up for the time being!

Promises were made, I can attest to that myself. Were any of those promises upheld - NOPE!!!!!!! So I suggest saving your time/breath, JMO.

Aaron, that simply can't be right.everybody knows SCI listens to members complaints and acts on them. look at how fast they acted upon complaints about OoA Adventurous Safaris conducting illegal Zim hunts, failure to provide members contracted hunts,rhino poaching, etc. oh, that's right- it took years to do anything( guess it helps to have a friend- i.e. a past president- as your lawyer). you are just guilty of sour grapes with no legitimate complaint. fire away Larry and Matt

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Sellers:
Aaron - I would venture to say, and correct me if I am wrong, past compliants most likely have been aired by individuals or three or four exhibitors at best as you pointed out. If this were a coalition, if you will, of a large number of exhibitors working together with several "solutions", not just complaints the message would most likely be taken a little more serious by SCI. One, two or half dozen folks complaining in a group of 1,200 exhibitors is very easy to ignore. It is up to you'all, it's your butts out there on the line taking the shots. If I were involved, and I have been in other venues, I would be all over it.

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:

quote:

Originally posted by billrquimby:
An excellent post Larry. I also suggest that this committee communicate with the proper people. Convention director Libby Grimes is the staff person they should contact at World Headquarters (520) 620-1220. If they ask, she probably will set up a meeting with herself, the convention committee and executive director Phil DeLone.

Bill Quimby

Bill and others - have you read my post (listed below) in the other SCI / Exhibitors thread! This is the MAIN problem, and yes - Libby knows ALL about this issue listed below too. Outsiders might find it hard to believe, but SCI simple DOES NOTHING when exhibitors have issues/complaints, etc. And why would they - with a LONG LIST of folks waiting to become exhibitors, they simply provide lip service and then move on!!!! If you don't like it, someone else is willing to take your place. You guys can keep telling us who to contact, what to do, etc, but believe me - we have ALL done that already!!! Maybe Brett can get somewhere, so we are at least willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.


At SCI 2012 in Vegas - our booth (Danny McCallum Safaris) was immediately next to Johan Calitz's booth. Both long time exhibitors, and substantial donators over the years - wouldn't you say?

We were placed right next to the live auction room, and it was VERY LOUD - to say the least. Complaints were made, numerous SCI officials came to both booths - including the SCI president. Both Johan & Danny were promised (numerous times) on the spot - compensation for the 2013 convention. I know for a fact, because I was helping Danny with it at the booth.

Over the next few months Johan's group and us too, emailed SCI, emailed eachother, etc, etc - all for nothing! It was simply lip service given to TWO long-time exhibitors, and respected members, who both have made substantial donations over the years - simply to shut them up for the time being!

Promises were made, I can attest to that myself. Were any of those promises upheld - NOPE!!!!!!! So I suggest saving your time/breath, JMO.

Larry - Man, I hear ya. Obviously a voice in numbers, is better than just a small few. But look at the complaint I listed above on behalf of Calitz and McCallum. This had nothing to do with a problem that affected many, but it was told to ALL of us involved that it would be made right (numerous times, and in person). Never once was any of that upheld - in fact, it was later ignored. That's the part that really pisses people off about SCI. They simply DO NOT care about anyone, including LONG-TIME exhibitors. I don't mean to sound like I am NOW complaining, cause frankly I am over it with SCI. I'm just giving the facts. I just go for biz, knowing what to expect. But to know what's really going on for exhibitors, might have some on the outside thinking a little differently as it pertains to exhibitor complaints.

Maybe Brett will organize such an effort???

Because that's where the customers are.

I think the idea Larry had of forming an exhibitor's coalition is an excellent idea. The more exhibitors who complain, the more they are likely to listen.

I don't believe for one minute that they would take lightly a couple dozen or so high quality outfitters threatening to not attend future shows if improvements aren't made. SCI can claim that there are hundreds of exhibitors on the "waiting list" who are waiting to take their place, but I doubt that many of those on the list are high quality outfitters or high quality products. I'd REALLY be interested to see just who's on that "waiting list". I wouldn't be surprised if half of them are food vendors (beef jerky, hot dogs, etc.) who they want to keep out anyway.

On another thread someone mentioned that DSC also has a long waiting list, despite the fact that when I went to it 2 years ago there was a LOT of empty floor space in the hall, enough for a couple hundred more booths I would guess. One poster, who seemed to be involved with DSC, stated that they wanted to keep the show up to a certain "quality level", which I understand, which is why they keep certain vendors out (and those might be the vendors who are on the waiting list). I'm sure SCI does the same thing. I really don't know what the criteria (or politics) are for who they let in, so this is just a guess on my part.

quote:

Originally posted by Molepolole:


On another thread someone mentioned that DSC also has a long waiting list, despite the fact that when I went to it 2 years ago there was a LOT of empty floor space in the hall, enough for a couple hundred more booths I would guess. One poster, who seemed to be involved with DSC, stated that they wanted to keep the show up to a certain "quality level", which I understand, which is why they keep certain vendors out (and those might be the vendors who are on the waiting list). I'm sure SCI does the same thing. I really don't know what the criteria (or politics) are for who they let in, so this is just a guess on my part.

My understanding is from talking to DSC convention organisers is that while they do have a waiting list they dont want to add too many new booths each year but to expand the show slowly and in a controlled manner. That would make a lot of sense to current exhibitors, especially those who have been there for the long-haul, through good years and tough.

JD - So predictable you are. Bringing up something totally irrelevant to the subject at hand. Instead of helping the plight of the exhibitors you just continue to bash SCI. Someday maybe you will let us ALL know just what it is that is behind your hatred for SCI. Could it be YOU have something to hide with your past dealings with the group?

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
Aaron, that simply can't be right.everybody knows SCI listens to members complaints and acts on them. look at how fast they acted upon complaints about OoA Adventurous Safaris conducting illegal Zim hunts, failure to provide members contracted hunts,rhino poaching, etc. oh, that's right- it took years to do anything( guess it helps to have a friend- i.e. a past president- as your lawyer). you are just guilty of sour grapes with no legitimate complaint. fire away Larry and Matt

I boycotted SCI by not going as a spectator. I have yet to talk to an exhibitor that says they like going to SCI or Reno.

Vote with your feet! Go to Dallas or Houston or Atlanta instead. If each exhibitor looked at the cost benefit of SCI you may see fewer attending. Look at all of your costs including donations and see if you really are benefitting.

dc - Just curious. Exactly how many SCI exhibitors have you talked to and asked specifically if they like going to SCI in Reno? Number please. Wondered why I didn't see you in Reno?? Boycott I guess. I am sure ALL exhibitors going to SCI have looked at their costs and evidently see it as a plus to be there. Really SCI compared to Atlanta?? Now that would be a stretch.

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

quote:

Originally posted by dogcat:
I boycotted SCI by not going as a spectator. I have yet to talk to an exhibitor that says they like going to SCI or Reno.

Vote with your feet! Go to Dallas or Houston or Atlanta instead. If each exhibitor looked at the cost benefit of SCI you may see fewer attending. Look at all of your costs including donations and see if you really are benefitting.

You've got to be joking, right?

quote:

Originally posted by Die Ou Jagter:
With all the complaints by the vendors at SCI why don't you people just boycotte the show like the many vendors to the Eastern Sportsmen Show and shut it down. How much power do you have? JMO

I did, have't been back since 2004.

Larry and Matt, despite your protestations to the contrary, SCI clearly has some issues that they need to attend to in order to protect their long term best interests. As best I can tell, with the exception of Matt, virtually every other exhibitor that has taken the time to post here has expressed a sentiment that in large part they only go because they have to. That does not sound to me like a long term recipe for success. A business that takes the attitude that they are the only game in town is generally destined not to be. If I was on the SCI board and read the feedback on this site from the exhibitors, I would be concerned.

I am curious does either DSC or SCI do any type of survey of exhibitors after the conventions to gather feedback on what they can improve on?

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Larry and Matt, despite your protestations to the contrary, SCI clearly has some issues that they need to attend to in order to protect their long term best interests. As best I can tell, with the exception of Matt, virtually every other exhibitor that has taken the time to post here has expressed a sentiment that in large part they only go because they have to. That does not sound to me like a long term recipe for success. A business that takes the attitude that they are the only game in town is generally destined not to be. If I was on the SCI board and read the feedback on this site from the exhibitors, I would be concerned.

Protestations?? I posted a list of 'complaints' in the other thread Mike!!!

I guess I may look at the convention a little differently to some exhibitors... I am a member of the club, I have a great interest in protecting hunting and being involved with true conservation - SCI provides that forum and networking opportunity. I don't just look at my participation from a cost:benefit position.

At the moment - we are serious promoting the wild banteng hunting in Australia. This is one of the rarest animals in the world that you can hunt and Australia is very lucky to have a strong huntable population... but it is a struggle to keep them in Australia... Will I make a lot of money from banteng hunting?? NO - but it was the main drive of my SCI promotions at the moment. Go figure...

I would like to think there are others who feel the same and I'm sure that there are.

I don't HAVE to go to SCI. I want to go because I enjoy it and I can see the Big Picture.

And the other exhibitors that seem to have some serious reservations about the manner in which the convention is run are incapable of seeing the "Big Picture"?

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
And the other exhibitors that seem to have some serious reservations about the manner in which the convention is run are incapable of seeing the "Big Picture"?

I don't know? You're telling the story Mike. I can only speak for myself.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Larry and Matt, despite your protestations to the contrary, SCI clearly has some issues that they need to attend to in order to protect their long term best interests. As best I can tell, with the exception of Matt, virtually every other exhibitor that has taken the time to post here has expressed a sentiment that in large part they only go because they have to. That does not sound to me like a long term recipe for success. A business that takes the attitude that they are the only game in town is generally destined not to be. If I was on the SCI board and read the feedback on this site from the exhibitors, I would be concerned.

At the moment - we are serious promoting the wild banteng hunting in Australia. This is one of the rarest animals in the world that you can hunt and Australia is very lucky to have a strong huntable population... .

Matt - All I know is that this Banteng critter, better be all that you say it is! Cause if my buffalo/banteng hunt this June is less than spectacular, I'm blaming it on you - and cancelling your booth at next year's SCI convention

I will move on after this. To me it is pretty simple, any business that runs on the basis that we do not need our customers, the customers need us, is destined to fail in the long run. Even if the business does good work and makes a positive contribution in other areas, if you ignore the views of your customers -- those that pay the bills -- at some point your customers will move on. It may not be today, it may not be tomorrow, but no one is going to stick around long term if they feel unappreciated and believe their concerns are not listened to. My guess, really more than a guess, is that a fair amount of the success and growth that the DSC has experienced in the last five years is a direct result of this very fact. We would all like to see SCI not just survive but thrive. But for that to happen they need to do a better job of listening to the interests of those that pay the bills, their members, including outfitters and exhibitors. You and Larry can have the last word.

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:

Matt - All I know is that this Banteng critter, better be all that you say it is! Cause if my buffalo/banteng hunt this June is less than spectacular, I'm blaming it on you - and cancelling your booth at next year's SCI convention

Well how can it be 'spectacular' if it is tied to a tree - as per your request?

You are SO getting charged by a banteng on this hunt now Aaron Nielsen - Mr TV Show host!!

So according to the opinion of it's worst critics, SCI operates on the same business plan as the highly successful, US Government. Monkey see, monkey do.

Gents:
What I find most interesting of this SCI bashing (and I am a basher and distain the organization) is that SCI has never come here to tell its side of the story and convince folks (like me) of the good side of its doings. I, for one, would really like to here the rest of the story.
Cal

Just who are SCI's customers?

The convention attendees (ie SCI's general membership)?

The Exhibitors?

SCI Leadership?

I can see both members and exhibitors being customers, but a lot of the complaints from exhibitors seem to be about things that draw the members to the show, at least supposedly.

Until it is decided who are the customers, no one is going to be able to coherently decide what should be done.

Cal - Why would you think SCI would ever come on a small forum like AR to say anything? There must be people on 10 million other websites that could say the same thing. Do you suppose maybe SCI doesn't even know about our teeny weenie group here? To think we at AR are the almighty voice on all issues hunting is a little far fetched don't you think?

Mike - Guess you didn't read all the threads on the subject? Matt has made it very clear that he thinks there are problems for exhibitors at SCI and I have simply suggested a possible plan and way that they could address this problem. Nothing more, nothing less. Geez.

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

quote:

Originally posted by cal pappas:
Gents:
What I find most interesting of this SCI bashing (and I am a basher and distain the organization) is that SCI has never come here to tell its side of the story and convince folks (like me) of the good side of its doings. I, for one, would really like to here the rest of the story.
Cal

Anyone buying a good or service from you is a customer.
So, in this case, both the member & the exhibitor are customers of SCI.
Both are equally needed.
Without the exhibitor the member has no reason to go.
Without the member the exhibitor has no reason to go.
I am absolutly NOT an SCI basher, but it does seem that there are serious problems that SCI needs to address & the sooner the better.

I am not a SCI member & nor am I likely to be an exhibitor or a visitor.

My interest in this subject is purely as a member of the wider hunting and shooting community who gets pissed off by behaviour that hurts the global hunting community. Simple.

The whole OOA issue stank of criminal conspiracy - yet so many SCI supporters allowed it to continue. Anderson never was held responsible for his blatant support of this crime syndicate!

Matt, you may be a sincere member of SCI and a committed conservationist but you are missing the point. This is NOT about you and your efforts. It is about the failure of SCI to promote a GOOD IMAGE of ALL legal hunters. The treatment given to well reputed outfitters etc. is just the tip of the iceberg. If the various SCI officials already know about it and just ignore the problem as Aaron says, it again shows the lack of genuine interest in how SCI is percieved by the hunting community.

Larry, I am surprised that you consider AR to be a small site. Just look at member traffic stats and compare it to other hunting sites like NE & 24hrcampfire etc. With Bill Quimby here on AR, I would be surprised if SCI big wigs do not check on this site regularly. When the whole OOA blowup was being discussed, I am sure SCI lawyers whould have been looking carefully.

Quite frankly, I doubt if any rifle manufacturer, ammo maker, outfitter or such vendors in the industry would have got away with such complaints & behaviour! People here on AR give Obama hell for a lot less!

Why is SCI getting away with it?

I saw in the other thread that SCI royalty visited some exhibiters and asked why they no longer made big donations. They must be concerned.

I strongly suggest that the various industry associations of outfitters, PHs/guides, manufacturers, gunsmiths, taxidermists etc. get together and discuss the matter. Call for a joint meeting with SCI. Put out an agend for discussion. Make if formal, official and public - with a united front.

SCI will not attend this meeting. So just go ahead with it & mark a copy of the minutes to SCI. Put the minutes out on the various forums.

I'd be surprised if toilet paper purchases did not go up in SCI headquarters!

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Just who are SCI's customers?

The convention attendees (ie SCI's general membership)?

The Exhibitors?

SCI Leadership?

I can see both members and exhibitors being customers, but a lot of the complaints from exhibitors seem to be about things that draw the members to the show, at least supposedly.

Until it is decided who are the customers, no one is going to be able to coherently decide what should be done.

Exactly correct.

I think it is important to first realize and admit what SCI is in the first place. It is primarily an advocacy force supporting the rights of hunters to enjoy their sport. This in turn by definition also serves as an advocacy force supporting outfitters rights and ability to be in the business of professional hunting. Without an effective legal representation effort countering the antis whenever and wherever they pop up, both the hunters and outfitters interests are at risk and will quickly be lost.

It seems to me that most of the SCI defenders, myself included, readily admit that room for improvement within the organization exists. However, it seems most of the detractors make no like allowances for the good done by SCI. I know it's a matter of personal interpretation, but anytime I see debates being conducted in an unfair manner, I have a hard time weighing the comments as being anything other than simple ideology.

Some of the better posts on the subject, not only in this thread, are the ones that attempt to represent the issues and possible solutions in a manner that is fair and reasonable. For example, we need to start with the fact that SCI is actually run by people, not a nebulous entity that doesn't care. It seems the objections are coming from the outfitters, not so much the attendees, and what attendees are voicing objections, are doing so on behalf of their outfitter friends.

So what is the best way forward to achieve success in correcting the wrongs? Firstly, IMO, we need to recognize that some of these objections are just whining and nothing more. It was stated several times earlier that the more petty complaints are presented and received, the less likely legitimate complaints will be heard and considered. I think the idea of forming a committee of well respected outfitters, who have some seniority within the show structure, and who have made significant contributions in the past, should get together and compile a list of grievances. That list should be scrutinized for legitimacy and pettiness, focusing only on the items that create a hardship on the companies. Forget about the taste of food, or how many times your company is "thanked" for attending and the like. Instead, focus on the business at hand. What helps and what hurts your company's bottom line. Form a consensus and attempt to change 2 or 3 major items that could be improved. Further, attempt to show how the changes you as outfitters seek will benefit not only your company, but SCI as well. Removing the pettiness and remaining professional can only help the cause.

From the attendees side who are complaining on behalf of their outfitter friends I would say this: get involved. Start at the Chapter level and get to know the board members. If you have the time to give, serve on the local boards. This will eventually put you into contact with and give you access to the national officers. Work within the outfitters specifically defined issues of concern as described above and voice your opinions on the matter. Realize however, that venturing into the petty complaints will defeat your efforts.

What seems blatantly missing from the discussion as to possible reasons why the current SCI leadership has been unresponsive is that by reason of the extensive waiting list to exhibit at the show, they probably think they are doing a great job of promoting the show. I'm sure they look at the situation from the standpoint that with as many exhibitors wanting to participate as there are, the show is obviously putting the two parties (hunters and outfitters) together effectively. How may guys here have stated they "Have" to attend SCI. Well ... I know that is being stated as a negative, but I'm sure SCI leadership interprets the statement in a different light. I'm sure the individuals responsible for administering and producing the show take that statement to mean that whatever complaints are aired, they are creating an environment which draws so many qualified customers capable of spending the dollars necessary to book hunts and buy items costing as much as the average American's home, that it is simply the best opportunity for the exhibitors to sell there wares, ANYWHERE! As long as they are putting the customers in front of the providers, they are ultimately doing their jobs which in turn generates the funds necessary to carry out the SCI mission.

A change in that attitude is not likely to be effected by unorganized complaints from a smattering of outfitters who are mixing legitimate issues with petty things such as how greasy their lunch burrito was! A small but influential group of exhibitors, provably representing a larger group of exhibitors, seeking improvement to a small list of real problems is more likely to get their attention and hold it past the current face to face interaction.

Guys, these are starting points to effect change and only starting points. Anyone so inclined to take the matters further if responsiveness is not forthcoming should attempt to involve themselves at a higher level such as participating on the national board of directors. If the people who are running the organization aren't doing the job, replace them! With whom you ask. With people who will be responsive, up to and including yourselves. Again, the organization is run by actual people. The folks who participate in international hunting and travel, seeking out expensive adventures, art, weapons and the like are typically very successful people. Why not put the talents that got you to your current social and professional stature to work for making a difference if you feel strongly enough about it.

The point I'm making in a way too long about way is that personal participation in attempting to make a difference will always be more effective than simply bitching and moaning without offering efforts to solve the problems.

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
I am not a SCI member & nor am I likely to be an exhibitor or a visitor.

My interest in this subject is purely as a member of the wider hunting and shooting community who gets pissed off by behaviour that hurts the global hunting community. Simple.

The whole OOA issue stank of criminal conspiracy - yet so many SCI supporters allowed it to continue. Anderson never was held responsible for his blatant support of this crime syndicate!

Matt, you may be a sincere member of SCI and a committed conservationist but you are missing the point. This is NOT about you and your efforts. It is about the failure of SCI to promote a GOOD IMAGE of ALL legal hunters. The treatment given to well reputed outfitters etc. is just the tip of the iceberg. If the various SCI officials already know about it and just ignore the problem as Aaron says, it again shows the lack of genuine interest in how SCI is percieved by the hunting community.

Larry, I am surprised that you consider AR to be a small site. Just look at member traffic stats and compare it to other hunting sites like NE & 24hrcampfire etc. With Bill Quimby here on AR, I would be surprised if SCI big wigs do not check on this site regularly. When the whole OOA blowup was being discussed, I am sure SCI lawyers whould have been looking carefully.

Quite frankly, I doubt if any rifle manufacturer, ammo maker, outfitter or such vendors in the industry would have got away with such complaints & behaviour! People here on AR give Obama hell for a lot less!

Why is SCI getting away with it?

I saw in the other thread that SCI royalty visited some exhibiters and asked why they no longer made big donations. They must be concerned.

I strongly suggest that the various industry associations of outfitters, PHs/guides, manufacturers, gunsmiths, taxidermists etc. get together and discuss the matter. Call for a joint meeting with SCI. Put out an agend for discussion. Make if formal, official and public - with a united front.

SCI will not attend this meeting. So just go ahead with it & mark a copy of the minutes to SCI. Put the minutes out on the various forums.

I'd be surprised if toilet paper purchases did not go up in SCI headquarters!

Oh please random- don't preach to me. You get all your knowledge about SCI from Accurate Reloading. Go and join SCI and do some good... or not, whatever you want ... but don't go preaching bullshit and allegations to members. Conduct good or bad is for the membership to decide - not some random pseudonym on a hunting forum.

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
I am not a SCI member & nor am I likely to be an exhibitor or a visitor. My interest in this subject is purely as a member of the wider hunting and shooting community who gets pissed off by behaviour that hurts the global hunting community. Simple. The whole OOA issue stank of criminal conspiracy - yet so many SCI supporters allowed it to continue. Anderson never was held responsible for his blatant support of this crime syndicate! Matt, you may be a sincere member of SCI and a committed conservationist but you are missing the point. This is NOT about you and your efforts. It is about the failure of SCI to promote a GOOD IMAGE of ALL legal hunters. The treatment given to well reputed outfitters etc. is just the tip of the iceberg. If the various SCI officials already know about it and just ignore the problem as Aaron says, it again shows the lack of genuine interest in how SCI is percieved by the hunting community. Larry, I am surprised that you consider AR to be a small site. Just look at member traffic stats and compare it to other hunting sites like NE & 24hrcampfire etc. With Bill Quimby here on AR, I would be surprised if SCI big wigs do not check on this site regularly. When the whole OOA blowup was being discussed, I am sure SCI lawyers whould have been looking carefully. Quite frankly, I doubt if any rifle manufacturer, ammo maker, outfitter or such vendors in the industry would have got away with such complaints & behaviour! People here on AR give Obama hell for a lot less! Why is SCI getting away with it? I saw in the other thread that SCI royalty visited some exhibiters and asked why they no longer made big donations. They must be concerned. I strongly suggest that the various industry associations of outfitters, PHs/guides, manufacturers, gunsmiths, taxidermists etc. get together and discuss the matter. Call for a joint meeting with SCI. Put out an agend for discussion. Make if formal, official and public - with a united front. SCI will not attend this meeting. So just go ahead with it & mark a copy of the minutes to SCI. Put the minutes out on the various forums. I'd be surprised if toilet paper purchases did not go up in SCI headquarters!

Huh?

I retired from my position at SCI in 1999-- 14 years ago -- and have not stepped foot into SCI's World Headquarters for ten years even though it is only a dozen miles from my home.

Why would my posting on AR forums have any bearing on what SCI's leaders do or not do?

Bill Quimby

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
You are SO getting charged by a banteng on this hunt now Aaron Nielsen

Like that's some surprise!!!!! Tell me something I don't know????

Thank heavens I'm on a new exercise program, one that will just barely allow me to out-run YOU.

Can you at least stand your ground and make a good shot, so my cameraman gets some useful footage? Cause I know where I'll be - no where to be seen!

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Sellers:
dc - Just curious. Exactly how many SCI exhibitors have you talked to and asked specifically if they like going to SCI in Reno? Number please. Wondered why I didn't see you in Reno?? Boycott I guess. I am sure ALL exhibitors going to SCI have looked at their costs and evidently see it as a plus to be there. Really SCI compared to Atlanta?? Now that would be a stretch.

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

Just once. Liked DSC better. Talked to 7 exhibitors who preferred not to be in Reno. Two were agents.

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
You are SO getting charged by a banteng on this hunt now Aaron Nielsen

Like that's some surprise!!!!! Tell me something I don't know????

Thank heavens I'm on a new exercise program, one that will just barely allow me to out-run YOU.

Can you at least stand your ground and make a good shot, so my cameraman gets some useful footage? Cause I know where I'll be - no where to be seen!

Well if you are expecting me to shoot your bull off of you I am going to send another guide in there!!

By the way - I may be fat but there is no chance you will ever outrun ME ...