Steve:

I guess we can agree to disagree about this. Here are my final shots, before I go away:

1. Charging what the market will bear for a prime booth location would be grossly unfair to those who have exhibited every year since the first couple of conventions. Likewise, giving the best booths to long-time exhibitors only would inhibit the club's ability to reward exhibitors who are generous in their donations.

2. Your anecdotal "evidence" for SCI having an unethical ethics committee has grown from eighteen hunters in a two-man camp to twenty in just a couple of posts.

3. Safari Magazine does not have investigative reporters searching the world for issues to uncover and combat. We had a one-man editorial team (me) when I was its editor and publisher. It's a two-man team now. If UK members do not provide articles none will be published. As for expertise in combating anti-gun laws, you've got SCI confused with our National Rifle Association. I would bet the UK shooting clubs know this and already have sought the NRA's counsel.

4. When you say "SCI" you criticize the club, and when you say "upper echelons" (plural) you lambast everyone who has ever held an office in the international organization.

Bill Quimby

Steve - I have to go with bilrquimby on this one. I also have to reluctantly retract my statement of you not being a SCI Witch Hunter. You have obviously won that title with your current posts on the subject.

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

Bill,

1 - Charging for quality and location works for every other product all over the world and has done for hundreds of years...... about the only time the other system works appears to be with SCI and the mafia.

2 - re-read my post. I said I met 2 hunters who had to share a camp with 18 others. When I went to school 2 + 18 = 20.

3 - They don't have to have investigative reporters. They have UK chapters who I'm sure just might have mentioned something about losing some of their guns.

4 - Anyone who thinks upper echelons means the entire club very obviously has an over inflated opinion of themselves. Upper echelons means just that. In other words, the senior management.

Larry,

Sorry you feel that way but I'm entitled to express my opinion just the same as anyone else is and I reserve my right to do so.

Steve:

I promised myself I'd back away, and here I am again.

1. I repeat: Charging what the market will bear can result in a new exhibitor with deep pockets and a product that has nothing to do with hunting getting center stage while the poor loyal smucks who have exhibited their hunting-based products and services through good and bad times for more than thirty years get the back of the bus. SCI's preference points system may not be the best system around, but it's not extortion.

2. Ooops. I may have a problem with math, but two guys in an airport saying there were twenty guys booked into what was advertised as a two-man camp does not make it so. I would hope that an ethics committee would investigate and determine if there actually were violations and not just take a complaint as the final word.

3. "They have UK chapters who I'm sure just might have mentioned something about losing some of their guns." Maybe, but I doubt they submitted articles to the magazine or Safari Times. Knowing Steve Comus, SCI's current publications director and a certified gun nut, I know he would have published them.

4. I do not have an over-inflated opinion of myself, and I have never thought upper echelons meant an entire club. Read my last post. I said: "When you say 'SCI' you criticize the club, and when you say 'upper echelons' (plural) you lambast everyone who has ever held an office in the international organization." A "club" is a group of many individuals with a common purpose, and only a few will hold offices. "Upper Echelons" and "senior management" are all those who hold offices and direct the organization. In the instance of SCI, its upper echelons (or senior management if you prefer this term) includes a board of directors of more than 200 persons from all over the world who meet several times each year to set policy, and an executive committee of twenty or so who work with the CEO and senior staff to implement that policy. You paint with too broad a brush and condemn too many good people because you have a problem with a very, very few.

Bill Quimby

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
Bill,

We all know the minimum US$600 will only get you a booth at the back next to the toilets and is nothing more than an added surcharge.

You might 'know' it but it is simply not the case or fact. Booth selections are made by the exhibitors (at least at the top of the exhibitor list) themselves, not by the club, according to their place on the list and their n umber of booths assigned. Not sure about those nearer the bottom at the bottom of the list but I would suggest they nominate booths and get them selected for them??

Most other conventions do not have such a fair selection process and you just nominate your preferred booth and hope to get them. At least with SCI the most desirable booths cannot be given away in backhanded deals to friends...

Didn't the UK handgun ban originate in the '80's?

As I recall, at the time, folks in the US were having their own difficulties with gun bans and "assault" weapon bans at that time. We were using the UK example as to how the slippery slope affected us all at the time.

I'm a "gun nut" and a handgun competitor, and have hunted big game with a handgun, having said that, I suspect that "handgun hunting" was never even on the radar with the UK gun bans- in fact one of my british friends, who since has moved over here, said that one of the comments made in justifying the ban there was that the pistol had no other use than as a weapon, which sounds rather suspiciously like what some say here in the US when they want gun control, but realize that the number of hunters is such as to make it a political impossibility.

In short, I can't say that SCI did or could have any role with stopping the UK gun bans. Maybe if there was a groundswell of support to get them re-legalized they could help with showing a "legitimate sporting purpose" but I suspect Shakari, that you know, being a expat Brit, just how far that particular snowball is going to go in parliment, right?

I agree that making one of OOA's lawyers a president elect or whatever, is pretty prejudicial in my view, and the fact that there are some "suspicious" behaviors by the ethics committee is another, but on the whole they don't do too badly IMO.

As to the comments about extortion from the operators, well, look how much money is everywhere in the industry- and its all 5% here, 15% there, and pretty soon you have real money. I suspect that the reason that hunts are donated moreso than cash is that then the "market value" gets to be used as its donation value, NOT what it really costs the company. Its trade in kind, and one has only to look at a hunting show to see all kinds of examples of it. At least with SCI you know its happening, and generally with whom.

quote:

Originally posted by billrquimby:
You paint with too broad a brush and condemn too many good people because you have a problem with a very, very few.

Bill Quimby

Precisely.

And that is what I find objectionable about many posts in this thread.

MR - You are right on with your thought and statement. I simply can't believe that most of the negative SCI posters, who most likely don't belong to a Chapter or even the Club itself, have never been to a SCI Convention or Chapter meeting, know absolutely nothing about the inner workings of SCI, have no 1st hand knowledge of anything SCI and rely on hearsay and 2nd, 3rd and 4th hand information to become experts on the subject. Sure people can have "their" opinions, but ones based on nothing more than noted above simply should be disregarded as blowing in the wind.

When you paint with a broad brush, it's usually because you don't have the knowledge, skills and commonsense to do otherwise!!

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

The real problem with companies like OoA is that all too often not-so-bad folks get fooled by their deceit (or are successfully tempted or sucked in with deals too good to pass up)... and then men, usually of good cheer, begin fussing with each other trying to defend their investments in time, money and prejudices (and I don't mean to imply that all prejudices are bad).

A noxious weed needs to get pulled up quickly. It ruins a good field if tolerated. SCI didn't snatch out a pretty obviously foul threat. The leadership has only itself to blame.

I hope the powers that be have learned a (totally unnecessary) lesson.

quote:

Originally posted by billrquimby:
Saeed, Steve:

Someone much smarter than I once said there is no way to reason prejudice into a fellow because it was not reasoned into him. That apparently was never more true than with the two of you and your bias against SCI.

I've pointed this out in the past, but there is no extortion in SCI's donation programs. Exhibitors at its conventions are not forced to donate anything. Donations do give them a discount on their booth fees. Exhibitors who donate extraordinarily expensive things do so voluntarily in the hope of becoming noticed and gaining more business. It's like any other type of advertising.

Saeed: I don't know where you found that $60,000 figure for SCI's total expenditures in and for Africa. It must cost more than that each year just to operate its Africa office, to say nothing about funding its efforts to testify at CITES meetings and host African workshops, etc.

Steve: Although it does take positions on firearms issues, the mission of SCI and SCICF is conservation of wildlife and protection of the hunter. I know it has assisted on firearms issues outside the USA when local chapters requested it, but as far as I know it hasn't taken a leadership role. I don't know this to be a fact, but I suspect U.S. laws restrict how involved SCI and SCICF may become in another country's political issues that do not directly involve wildlife conservation.

I admit to knowing nothing about the Mozambique ivory situation, but it is a fact that SCI is instrumental in allowing elephant trophy parts from other countries to continue to be imported into the USA. Without SCI, Americans also would not be allowed to import their bonteboks and white rhino trophies from South Africa.

I, too, cannot understand why it took so long for SCI's ethics committee to take action against Out of Africa Adventurous Safaris, but I don't share your total contempt for the club's entire ethical review process. Each issue of Safari Times lists outfitters and members and the actions the committee has taken against them. The committee must be doing something right.

I have had no connection with SCI since retiring from my director of publications post in 1999 (other than holding a life membership and moderating a seminar at its conventions) and it would be easy for me to bite my tongue and say nothing. However, you are criticizing a club I have supported for more than a quarter century, and most of your rant is unfair and unwarranted.

Bill Quimby

Bill,

We have had this discussion about what SCI has done for Afriocan hunting on numerous occasions.

I collected all the amounts SCI supporters have posted of the cost of project that they had done.

I am still waiting to see any meaningful numbers.

We have gone as far as to examine their financial report.

That really did not give us much details at all.

But ultimately, you are right.

As far as I am concerned, there is no two way about explaining SCI policy regarding "donations".

When some tells me "the price of this booth space is X dollars, but for you to get it, you have to "donate" either a product or service, or pay $600."

And as far as the "ethics" committee is concerned, it might as well be called "leave your ethics outside before you come in, as we have non whatsoever in this committe"

The SCI management needs to take a very hard look at it self in the mirror. Once they see themselves as hunters see them, they might change their attitude.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

When some tells me "the price of this booth space is X dollars, but for you to get it, you have to "donate" either a product or service, or pay $600."

So the price of each booth is X+$600 - big deal.. it is all right there, as clear as day in the literature!! There are no secrets, no fine print and NO under-the-table deals. The alternative is to donate product or services to that value and this is a better option for most (and encouraged by SCI) because the donation comes at their cost price and the outfitter for example gets a good new client (hopefully) instead of just a $600 hole in his pocket. The $600 cash option is only a fallback position for those who are sold-out of product or services (fully booked outfitters for example) or some who dont want clients who are 'donation buyers'.

Most of this is not my opinion - it is fact my friend!

How does DSC allocate their booth space?

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
How does DSC allocate their booth space?

I understand they have a priority points system, much like SCI, although I have never seen it published (unlike SCI) - from my experience you tell them what booth you prefer, pay your deposit and hope for the best... I guess??..... dont know what part donations to DSC play in all that but hunt and product donations are not compulsory and I presume they effect the points system if that system does exist still??

For your interest - here is the published SCI priority points listing for next year. My company has slipped from 48-75 in 5 years... I must not be donating enough!!! Damn some of those companies must donate some big items...

Rankings
I see OoA is still in there too ...maybe I'll go back up to 74???

I am not a member of SCI and have no stake in this debate. My real issue is about the ethics committee chairman and his association with OoA.

Having been in senior management of corporations, I have a reasonable understanding of the term "conflict of interest". I also have a good understanding of the term "credibility beyond doubt". So here is my question...

How could Mr. Anderson sit as chairman of the ethics committee and have complaints against OoA rejected and then be the attorney of Dawie Groenewald in a felony charge? Is this not clear evidence that the chairman was prejudiced in favour of the accused and hence the complaints were rejected by the committee?

Another issue I am curious about is the political affiliations. Are members of the Bush family or Dick Cheney members of SCI? (I know that Bush sr & jr were members of NRA). Are there there any connections between top Republican politicians and Mr. Anderson or OoA?

Bill,

Before I start, I'd like to make very clear that I don't consider you as on of the people I'm criticising. As far as you're concerned, you're an absolute gentleman in every way!.... and incidentally, nor do I think you have an over inflated opinion of yourself at all.... quite the opposite in fact!

your points:

1. As I said, I'd bet that damn near every exhibitor if surveyed privately, would prefer to pay a set price dependent on quality of location etc rather than stay with the donation scheme which costs them a fortune, is ever escalating (as Matt points out for me) and in the long run, damages the entire industry immensely.

I appreciate Matt isn't on my side in thise debate but he says his rating has dropped.... to get it up again, he's going to have to donate more next time and the cost of all those donations has eventually to be spread over the cost of the rest of the season's hunts thereby escalating the cost for the rest of the customers.

That policy (in the long run) harms everyone except SCI.

2. No problem about the maths.... it was an easy mistake to make. Yeah, you're quite right. It could be that OoA were telling the truth and the guys who left early and then got together with some of the people they found themselves unwillingly sharing a camp with and who combined to make a complaint to the ethics cttee might all have been lying. - But I'm sure I'm not the only one to think that theory somewhat unlikely to say the very least.

3. I've no idea if the UK chapters submitted articles or not but I'm sure they would most certainly have contacted SCI in some way about the issue. I'm not a particular fan of the UK chapters (then) and found a fairly high percentage of them to be a bit hooray henry and others a tad sycophantic for my tastes but they most certainly aren't stupid and I'm sure it would have occurred to some at least to contact the association who are 'first for hunters' to discuss the issue at least. (Incidentally, I was a member of SCI but was not involved with the chapter for the reasons mentioned)

4. I refer you to my first para. My criticisms were most certainly NOT directed at you at all.

As I've repeatedly said in all the various threads we've had on this. I don't have a problem at all with the ordinary rank and file members. Every one I've ever met has been a fine person and enjoyable company. Nor do I have a problem with the chapters (although have heard complaints about them from others). My problem lies with those few who might be described as top dogs/management/policy makers/upper echelons..... and NO-ONE else.

I really don't feel I am painting with broad brush strokes. People might be misreading or even perhaps misunderstanding my comments but I don't think my brush strokes are too broad at all.

Matt,

The big difference between SCI & DSC is that with DSC the donation is optional.

Interesting that despite OoA supposedly being banned from SCI, it is still listed though.

crbutler

There were two bans. (going from memory) The first was handguns and a few other bits and pieces and the second was semi auto shotgun mag restrictions etc. Although it has yet to be announnced, you can bet your life there is now further restrictions in the pipeline.

Mike,

I refer you to the answers I gave to Bill.

Larry,

I assume (but might be wrong) that your comment "have never been to a SCI Convention or Chapter meeting, know absolutely nothing about the inner workings of SCI, have no 1st hand knowledge of anything SCI and rely on hearsay and 2nd, 3rd and 4th hand information to become experts on the subject" refers to me?

If so. Whoever told you I've never been a member or attended a convention etc? I have been and I have done. In fact I've attended several conventions (including SCI) and even exhibited at some. However, I don't any more. and as previously stated. I don't believe I'm painting with a broad brush at all. My problem is with a few policies and policy makers and NOTHING else.

Judge,

Yes, you're quite right. The weed should have never have been allowed to grow but it was.

I do have to say though that I'm always suprised how many otherwise highly intelligent and successful people fail to recognise that if you buy cheap, you're gonna get cheap.

Saeed,

Right on my friend!

Nakihunter,

Right on my friend!

I also find it interesting that Mr anderson who was President Elect stood down at short notice and someone else slotted into the top spot at short notice.

Strange that........

The other surprise to me is that Cal Rigby is ranked Numero Uno! Do they donate a double rifle each year at SCI?

Come on guys....some one must be able to find the old boy network list of the senior officials in SCI and their links to top politicians. How many of them are drinking, golfing mates of GWB or Cheney? Many wouldn't shoot with Cheney of course

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:


I appreciate Matt isn't on my side in these debate but he says his rating has dropped.... to get it up again, he's going to have to donate more next time and the cost of all those donations has eventually to be spread over the cost of the rest of the season's hunts thereby escalating the cost for the rest of the customers.

That policy (in the long run) harms everyone except SCI.

It's not about sides mate - it's about presenting the truth. This is a very well read forum and the truth matters to its members. I know the failings of SCi as much as anyone. I read your comments about the chapters and to be honest - I personally have FAR MORE complaints about certain chapters than I do about the parent organisation.

Yes my rating has dropped ... but at the top of the list it is a race... and a very expensive race at that. Most of the pressure is driven by non-hunting org's - artists, manufacturers, etc... who can donate very high-value items at low intrinsic value or cost... in order that they escalate the SCI ladder. Subsequently poor outfitters like myself have to dig deeper and find bigger donations to keep our position and keep prime booth space. It's a game I cant play for too long and I will inevitably loose my place even more.

I am sure SCI never intended this to happen but yes the club benefits greatly from the 'top-end' points chase. Outfitters at the bottom (and hell there are some GREAT outfitters there) shrug it off and accept that they will never get enough points to make any difference to their placement. Disregarding the points chase and disregarding the non-hunting orgs - the list and placements are important to the buyer...as (with some noteable exceptions) there is a list right there of the successful and long-lasting safari operators - since like I said above it is very difficult for outfitters to offer these huge donations, year after year - they gain their points through longevity.

Yes you are right - these unusual marketing costs MUST contribute to rising price of certain hunts... particularly the 'high-end' hunts.

You say this must harm everyone - except SCI - Yes quite possibly but this was simply a system of fair play for the exhibitors that has worked for many years. Those certain booths are so highly prized... I dont think it would be that easy to change the system. I mean hell... my place on that list is a company asset ... I would be madder than hell if they changed the system!!!!!!! Ya know!!!

quote:

Matt,

The big difference between SCI & DSC is that with DSC the donation is optional.

Interesting that despite OoA supposedly being banned from SCI, it is still listed though.

Yes well you say it is optional and in the paperwork it is but if you want a certain booth or to gain some status with points then you must donate... it is EXACTLY the same as SCI, except DSC is $X per booth and SCI is (minimum) $Y+600/booth. Same horse, different rider.

Yes I think they have either not updated the list yet or they have to let them keep the points for some reason but make them ineligble to use them???? who knows - so long as they arent there!!

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:



Larry,

I assume (but might be wrong) that your comment "have never been to a SCI Convention or Chapter meeting, know absolutely nothing about the inner workings of SCI, have no 1st hand knowledge of anything SCI and rely on hearsay and 2nd, 3rd and 4th hand information to become experts on the subject" refers to me?

If so. Whoever told you I've never been a member or attended a convention etc? I have been and I have done. In fact I've attended several conventions (including SCI) and even exhibited at some. However, I don't any more. and as previously stated. I don't believe I'm painting with a broad brush at all. My problem is with a few policies and policy makers and NOTHING else.

So HAVE you actually ever exhibited at SCI?? As an outfitter, with your own hand in your pocket for the $Y+600??

There seems to be a list of 1000 or more dumb-as-fuck outfitters, artists and multinational firearm manufacturers who seem to think it is important and worthwhile. How could so many people be so dumb and accept such extortion?? Go figure!!

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

Yes my rating has dropped ... but at the top of the list it is a race... and a very expensive race at that. Most of the pressure is driven by non-hunting org's - artists, manufacturers, etc... who can donate very high-value items at low intrinsic value or cost... in order that they escalate the SCI ladder. Subsequently poor outfitters like myself have to dig deeper and find bigger donations to keep our position and keep prime booth space. It's a game I cant play for too long and I will inevitably loose my place even more.

That's my point exactly. To keep pace, one has to increase the donation every year and then those costs have to be split over the year to pay for the show.

Therefore you have to raise your prices for all your clients and thus making your hunts less affordable which in turn means fewer clients..... Effectively, any company that followed the donation scheme to extreme could end up pricing themselves out of business.

As I see it, a much fairer system would be to have the show divided into sections for each product such as hunting, fishing, art etc and then price each booth according to size & location etc.

Shows such as the CLA game fair in the UK do just that. It works well, keeps prices lower for everyone, doesn't cause bad feeling amongst the exhibitors and makes it easier for the visitors to find what they want.

I have done the conventions in the past (not for about 10 years) and like others, spent a bloody fortune on them.....

I enjoy the conventions (esp the social side) but decided it wasn't worth us attending.

SCI owed a friend of mine some money for work he had done. they neged. for booth space then when he was about to leave for the show they wanted a cash donation of at least 600 dollars

ddrhook - I see no problem with that? As Matt explained, a time or two, the booth is XX$$ plus $600 more in cash or a donation. That's the set-up, published up front, everyone knows it going in, except your friend maybe)?

That's the other funny thing. The rules, costs and all the details are given to each prospective booth space buyer and it's THEIR choice on whether to participate or not. No extortion, no hidden costs, no under the table deals, simply SCI's rules of participation. Just like any other business deal!

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

quote:

Originally posted by ddrhook:
SCI owed a friend of mine some money for work he had done. they neged. for booth space then when he was about to leave for the show they wanted a cash donation of at least 600 dollars

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Sellers:
ddrhook - I see no problem with that? As Matt explained, a time or two, the booth is XX$$ plus $600 more in cash or a donation. That's the set-up, published up front, everyone knows it going in, except your friend maybe)?

That's the other funny thing. The rules, costs and all the details are given to each prospective booth space buyer and it's THEIR choice on whether to participate or not. No extortion, no hidden costs, no under the table deals, simply SCI's rules of participation. Just like any other business deal!

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

quote:

Originally posted by ddrhook:
SCI owed a friend of mine some money for work he had done. they neged. for booth space then when he was about to leave for the show they wanted a cash donation of at least 600 dollars

Larry:

"XX$ + $600 OR A DONATION" - What if the donation is less than $600?
Also, other than the fixed rate, if neither of the other two are paid then it stands to reason to assume you don't get the desired booth - if this does not amount to extortion/blackmail then what does?

"We all know the minimum US$600 will only get you a booth at the back next to the toilets and is nothing more than an added surcharge."

I've reached the stage in life where I wish our booth WAS a bit closer to the toilets!


Rich Elliott

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
That's my point exactly. To keep pace, one has to increase the donation every year and then those costs have to be split over the year to pay for the show.

Therefore you have to raise your prices for all your clients and thus making your hunts less affordable which in turn means fewer clients..... Effectively, any company that followed the donation scheme to extreme could end up pricing themselves out of business.

As I see it, a much fairer system would be to have the show divided into sections for each product such as hunting, fishing, art etc and then price each booth according to size & location etc.

Shows such as the CLA game fair in the UK do just that. It works well, keeps prices lower for everyone, doesn't cause bad feeling amongst the exhibitors and makes it easier for the visitors to find what they want.

I have done the conventions in the past (not for about 10 years) and like others, spent a bloody fortune on them.....

I enjoy the conventions (esp the social side) but decided it wasn't worth us attending.

Yeah like I said I agree that it may be driving costs up but only for maybe the top 20% of exhibitors in total, competing for the prime spaces... and that still represents a small percentage of outfitters worldwide, so there is still competition from the lower-end, keeping prices down to an extent, in theory.

So how does the CLA show do it when booths are oversubscribed by 100% and smaller, family-based businesses are pushed out by corporates with more money - as would be the situation with SCI. I presume CLA then is also limited in size as SCI is at Reno too then??

I would suggest that the CLA show is completely different in all respects to the SCI hunting show - a show that is trying to keep the focus on international hunting - sure there are other items there but SCI is a members only show for HUNTERS!!

You didnt answer my question Steve!!! Have you ever been an actual booth holder at SCI??

quote:

Originally posted by Rich Elliott:
"We all know the minimum US$600 will only get you a booth at the back next to the toilets and is nothing more than an added surcharge."

I've reached the stage in life where I wish our booth WAS a bit closer to the toilets!


Rich Elliott

hehehe Yeah... the toilets are closer to the beer too right??

quote:

Larry:

"XX$ + $600 OR A DONATION" - What if the donation is less than $600?
Also, other than the fixed rate, if neither of the other two are paid then it stands to reason to assume you don't get the desired booth - if this does not amount to extortion/blackmail then what does?

I'd have to check the rules (I dont know) but I am pretty sure that the donations are taken in good faith of their value and auctioned at the show - so they arent coming around saying "your auction didnt realise $600"!! The auction is DURING the show.

Steve makes them sound like Gestapo but they (SCI Convention) are far from that...

Matt,

I don't know what the CLA do if they're oversubscribed I'm afraid.... haven't even been to one for about 15 years but I seem to remember it was done on a first come first served basis as far as bookings are concerned and locations are allocated fairly close (datewise) to the show.

My guess is they are probably more flexible on space than the US conventions because the CLA and most other UK ones are mostly outside rather than in convention centres so they can spread out more if the need to.

Sorry mate. I didn't mean to ignore your question, I misunderstood it and thought I'd answered it. We have attended the SCI show but not exhibited. We looked into it but when I saw the donation scheme, I thought fuck that for a lark.

We have also attended and exhibited at other shows including the DSC one and I have to say, the DSC is my favourite by a mile. As far as business is concerned, I didn't reckon the Sportsman's shows much..... good to look at and good to buy odds and ends but nothing spectacular when it comes to selling hunts.

Nowadays, we don't do them at all. As much as I like the shows and have a ball in the USA it simply isn't worth our while to attend because we sell too much of what we have available without attending so it's not financially viable for us. We also find it's always a busy time for us and as far as we're concerned, it'd be nice for us at least if they happened before the Christmas break rather than after it.

FWIW, if I were going to start doing the conventions again, I'd definitely do the DSC one, wouldn't consider the SCI one all the while they have the donation scheme running and wouldn't bother with the sportsman's Expos or whatever they're called.

my take on it was sci OWED him money!!!! not the other way around. the rank and file membership are great people who need to take the org. over and get new leaership.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
Steve makes them sound like Gestapo but they (SCI Convention) are far from that...

Definitely not like the Gestapo mate. They're all very polite and charming but that doesn't alter the fact that all the while they're being polite and charming, they're also pillaging your wallet.

I guess it's a bit like a high priced tourist restaurant with second rate food. The bloke in the DJ spends all his time being nice to you but you and he both know it's all BS and you're gonna have to pay through the nose for it before you leave.

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
Matt,

I don't know what the CLA do if they're oversubscribed I'm afraid.... haven't even been to one for about 15 years but I seem to remember it was done on a first come first served basis as far as bookings are concerned and locations are allocated fairly close (datewise) to the show.

My guess is they are probably more flexible on space than the US conventions because the CLA and most other UK ones are mostly outside rather than in convention centres so they can spread out more if the need to.

Sorry mate. I didn't mean to ignore your question, I misunderstood it and thought I'd answered it. We have attended the SCI show but not exhibited. We looked into it but when I saw the donation scheme, I thought fuck that for a lark.

We have also attended and exhibited at other shows including the DSC one and I have to say, the DSC is my favourite by a mile. As far as business is concerned, I didn't reckon the Sportsman's shows much..... good to look at and good to buy odds and ends but nothing spectacular when it comes to selling hunts.

Nowadays, we don't do them at all. As much as I like the shows and have a ball in the USA it simply isn't worth our while to attend because we sell too much of what we have available without attending so it's not financially viable for us. We also find it's always a busy time for us and as far as we're concerned, it'd be nice for us at least if they happened before the Christmas break rather than after it.

FWIW, if I were going to start doing the conventions again, I'd definitely do the DSC one, wouldn't consider the SCI one all the while they have the donation scheme running and wouldn't bother with the sportsman's Expos or whatever they're called.

CLA: So you admit that the CLA show situation has almost zero to do with the SCI show situation?? That would seem to be the case to me. SCI sure wouldnt work on a first-come first-served basis either. No not ever... and shows are planned years in advance...

Pretty hard to be critical of the donation scheme too if you have never seen the benefits (as an outfitter) .... do you think all of those outfitter at the top and bottom of the list just go there for shits-and-giggles and the titty bars? Sure some outfitters at SCI bitch to me about the donation scheme - my answer ... "so why are you here"?

Matt,

It's a show for hunters that sells hunts and fishing trips etc from all over the world, hunting and fishing gear and a plethora or related items from window blinds to wooly jumpers.

The hunters pay at the door to go in and CLA members get a discount on that...... sounds pretty damn similar to me except that the US one is indoors and done with the flair for show that the Americans do so very well...... but basically, I'd say they're a similar sort of thing.

CLA and other game fairs are planned years in advance as well and in fact my brother plans the same(ish) sort of thing and often works 3 - 4 + years in advance....but they don't allocate booth space anywhere near the initial planning stages and I'd bet SCI do a similar thing. After all why would SCI allocate top spot a long time in advance when someone might come along later with an even bigger donation?

As for benefits of the donation scheme for the donator...... perhaps you can tell us what they are?

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
....but they don't allocate booth space anywhere near the initial planning stages and I'd bet SCI do a similar thing. After all why would SCI allocate top spot a long time in advance when someone might come along later with an even bigger donation?

As for benefits of the donation scheme for the donator...... perhaps you can tell us what they are?

"After all why would SCI allocate top spot a long time in advance when someone might come along later with an even bigger donation? "

I dont think you understand the booth allocation system at all Steve - in fact you dont understand any of what has been said it seems. It is not about what you donate this year that effects this years allocation - it is what you have donated and spent (on booths and other advertising and marketing - in your history with SCI. That is how you get your priority points and the collective point system ranks the companies from highest to lowest (newest). The No1 company gets first choice of booth location for the number of booths they are eligible for and then they work down the list... there is no fairer way than it could be done.

So lets say if I decide to increase my expenditure (donations or whatever) in the hope of getting back up the list - then I am doing it to assist my booth placement and position the following year and beyond.

What benefits for the DONOR?? Well, aside from it being just a part of the cost to attend the convention - if you are high up the list you stand to gain more in terms of future booth placement, as explained in detail above.

Secondly for hunt donors - it is possible to profit from the hunt donation by bringing new hunters and their friends to your operation, thats great for outfitters who need more work but hard for those who fill their quota anyhow. In my experience I do a bit better than break even over time... Some years it is a dead loss and then other years the hunt buyer will bring some friends and everyone is happy... it all averages out over time. At least with the donations at SCI (especially more desirable hunts) you will likely have many people bidding on your hunt and asking you questions in research before the auction. Last convention I had 4 hunters bidding on my donation and every one of those who bid bought a hunt from me, except the guy who bought the donation. That is a good environment to be operating in...

I exhibit at SCI because it is an intrinsic part of my business, not just to physically sell more hunts but also a place for potential clients, who I have communicated with through the year, can come look me in the eye and decide if I am full of shit or not. It costs me a lot of money but if it wasnt worthwhile I wouldnt go - would I?? I think about paying the cash 'donation' sometimes but then I always relent and give them another nice hunt because I would always rather a client (good or bad come-what-may) then a smouldering hole in my pocket.

Matt,

Thank you very much for posting your thoughts here. It is refreshing to hear from someone who actually knows what he is talking about when discussing the SCI Show systems, and who has a rational argument for participating!

Your singular opinion should AT LEAST outweigh the irrational vitriol of those who have never participated, and seem to have no idea how it all works.

I believe I will make a point of visiting your booth in Reno next year. Maybe check out what hunting Australia is all about!

Thanks again!

Les

Matt,

Don't be silly mate. Of course I know how the system works. I've been in the business for 30 years and have a very wide circle of friends in the business all over Africa who attend and donate etc. It'd be damn near impossible for me not to know the how the system works and I also know it well enough to know that despite never having had a booth there I could still get the top spot by offering a sufficiently valuable donation.

I'm also suprised you don't expect me to have looked into the costs etc simply as a business excercise. I might not look at it every year but I do look at it every two or three years out of interest. I might not study all the details but I do more or less know the system.

Regarding the reasons you mention.

1st reason. If the donation scheme did not exist you wouldn't have to worry about how high up the list you stand to gain more in terms of future booth placement. All you'd have to worry about is how much you want to spend on a booth in exchange for a good location.

2nd reason. Yeah they might bring friends but equally they might not. No doubt others might also buy hunts, but again, equally they might not. Also if you didn't have to donate, you could lower your prices because you don't have to compensate for the cost of the donation and might sell more hunts that way.

Your third and last para. I'm not criticising you at all for doing the show circuit and making donations. In fact, I don't criticise anyone for doing it. What you or they do is entirely up to you or them and nothing to do with me.

What I am criticising is the scheme itself, not the people who join it. And that's entirely up to me.......

As a different example of why I don't like it and won't play the game. I know two blokes who attended the last convention and who shall remain nameless..... I accept that it was a bad year because of the recession etc but they travelled all the way to the US, paid for a booth etc and each made a donation of a 10 day hunt...... and all one sold was one 21 day hunt. Subtract the hunt he gave away and he's sold 11 hunting days for all that cost.

The other guy did a similar thing and didn't sell a single hunting day.

With sums like that, how long do you reckon they'll stay in business?

Also it beggers the questions how many companies suffered the same way and how many can afford a second or third year etc like that.... and if they can't, what happens then?

I just want to know where all these non-SCI going outfitters are with the lower prices because they do not have to attend?

This has gotten way off the original topic.

No one seems to know for fact why SCI tolerated OOA for so long. I have been a life member of SCI for a long time. I have been to all the conventions for probably the last 20 years with one exception. I sent them an e mail. They didn't respond or even acknowledge receipt.

I was very disappointed in them.

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
It'd be damn near impossible for me not to know the how the system works and I also know it well enough to know that despite never having had a booth there I could still get the top spot by offering a sufficiently valuable donation.

This proves you dont know how the system works because that is simply not possible, not in this day.

I can explain it to you Steve - but I cant understand it for you!!

quote:

I'm also suprised you don't expect me to have looked into the costs etc simply as a business excercise. I might not look at it every year but I do look at it every two or three years out of interest. I might not study all the details but I do more or less know the system.

I never said you havent looked into the costs???????? But as you suggest you havent studied all the details - and more or less means you DONT KNOW how it works. Booth placement is done in an open forum and exhibitors can see all booths that are avilabale at their designated placement time.

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:

1st reason. If the donation scheme did not exist you wouldn't have to worry about how high up the list you stand to gain more in terms of future booth placement. All you'd have to worry about is how much you want to spend on a booth in exchange for a good location.

2nd reason. Yeah they might bring friends but equally they might not. No doubt others might also buy hunts, but again, equally they might not. Also if you didn't have to donate, you could lower your prices because you don't have to compensate for the cost of the donation and might sell more hunts that way.

Your third and last para. I'm not criticising you at all for doing the show circuit and making donations. In fact, I don't criticise anyone for doing it. What you or they do is entirely up to you or them and nothing to do with me.

What I am criticising is the scheme itself, not the people who join it. And that's entirely up to me.......

1st Reason - No you wouldnt have to worry about getting your place in the show - you would be worried about getting a place at all - as larger companies gobbled up the available space!!

2nd reason - Like someone else said - where are these cheaper outfitters? Plenty of good value hunts shown at Reno - just part of the marketing costs. I'd like to think that mine are good value and I attend and donate. There are plenty of other benefits for outfitter to attend and be part of this very large professional gathering as well.

quote:

As a different example of why I don't like it and won't play the game. I know two blokes who attended the last convention and who shall remain nameless..... I accept that it was a bad year because of the recession etc but they travelled all the way to the US, paid for a booth etc and each made a donation of a 10 day hunt...... and all one sold was one 21 day hunt. Subtract the hunt he gave away and he's sold 11 hunting days for all that cost.

The other guy did a similar thing and didn't sell a single hunting day.

With sums like that, how long do you reckon they'll stay in business?

Also it beggers the questions how many companies suffered the same way and how many can afford a second or third year etc like that.... and if they can't, what happens then?

I wouldnt like to give any reasons why your friends didnt sell any hunts!! Numbers of hunters through the door was down and that was reflected in sales but I was only down 20% of average... previous year was down nearly 50%. So you can see why there are advantages to longevity at the convention, holding your booth space and also why the top half of the list are so coveted by many and the premium booth spaces as well.

As my company slips down the list (inevitably pushed by larger donors and merchandise companies and freaking artists) - I will loose my place in the heart of the premium area. I am guessing I can survive that, so long as SCI DONT change the rules!!!!!

Matt - You have explained and reexplained exactly how it is and goes with booth allocation. Some here will continue to argue the FACTS and claim to know everything there is about SCI, while sitting afar obviously NOT knowing what they are talking about. All (booth buyers) and the rest of us except the SCI detractors have no problem it seems with the system and your explanation. The rest will never understand or admit to it, that they are simply wrong and just continue to bash SCI for their own selfish and self serving reasons. Thanks for setting the record exactly as it is and to hell with those who choose not to believe.

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

Thanks Larry - I thought I was going crazy or writing in a foreign language or something.

Off-topic?? Yep - I dont think anyone will know or understand or get an explanation of why OoA got away with it for so long. Who cares - move on!

Matt, you are not crazy and your English is working fine.

Seldom have I seen more words spent on less meaning than shakari has spent in this thread.

The answers to these specious "extortion" charges are really quite simple:

1. No outfitter is compelled to participate.

2. No outfitter would participate if the price was too high.

The rest is sour grapes.