Since the wife is gone this weekend and I am bored this afternoon as there hasn't been much activity on AR this weekend I will write this.

If I read the communication properly that I got from SCI it is their intent to force wives (or girl friends as the case may be) to join SCI as memebers in order for them to attend the convention with us.

As I read it they want it for 2007, and it will be a requirement for 2008, to raise more revenue. Do I understand this correctly?

It makes me wonder why I paid a 3 year renewal in March. It sure isn't for the "rag" the publish as most issues have to much of "the good ol' boys patting another good ol' boy on the back with congradulations for something" A good example is the last issue, "if it ain't big it ain't good!" What about the hunt in place of the competition. Kinda reminds me of a friend of mine that called an official SCI trophy measure guy about getting good set of horn measured for the "book". He was told, "if it wasn't a new #1, he didn't want to waste his time measuring it." Fine attitude.

I guess we can go back to Dallas again and stay happy, but had planned to go to Reno in 2007, as well. Especially since it hadn't worked out to be in Reno the last two years. Now it appears they don't want me since we don't "spend enough."

Now BBQ me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let me be the first to welcome you to TEXAS next year.

We'll have the BBQ ready and waiting.

As long as they permit the public to visit the Convention, there is no way they can force anyone to join SCI.

You can either vote with your wallet, or buy your companion a ticket at the door.

George

George:

It's been 7 years since I was on SCI's staff and knew what was going on in that organization, but it seems to me there was only one year -- way back in early days of the club -- when there was not a requirement that convention entrants be SCI members.

It has something to do with state and federal tax laws. If the public were allowed inside vendors would have to collect sales tax, or at least that was my impression. Wives and guests were not required to belong, though.

I suspect the proposed new rules have more to do with increasing membership numbers than income. SCI's membership has not grown significantly since I retired in 1999, according to the post office statement of mailing that all magazines are required to publish each year.

BillQ

I think AfricanHunter is correct in that SCI has changed policy. It is in the new Safari Times this month.

The article implies that in the past spouses etc were allowed in without being members. I wonder what impact it will have on the show attendance.

These big non profits always think they have found the "magic bullet" for increasing membership. It almost never works.

TJR

I just filled out on online survey that SCI sent. In it, it asks about the respondents feelings regarding spousal membership requirements. I responded quite negatively to the questions and in my comments. Basically I told them that I won't attend if my wife is required to be a member. She enoys the show but does not hunt. I really doubt that she wants to be a member, otherwise she would have joined years ago.

-Steve

quote:

Originally posted by billrquimby:
George:

It's been 7 years since I was on SCI's staff and knew what was going on in that organization, but it seems to me there was only one year -- way back in early days of the club -- when there was not a requirement that convention entrants be SCI members.

It has something to do with state and federal tax laws. If the public were allowed inside vendors would have to collect sales tax, or at least that was my impression. Wives and guests were not required to belong, though.

I suspect the proposed new rules have more to do with increasing membership numbers than income. SCI's membership has not grown significantly since I retired in 1999, according to the post office statement of mailing that all magazines are required to publish each year.

BillQ

Bill,
I went to my first convention in about '75, maybe '74. The wife has never been required to be a member in order to accompany me. We just paid the daily fee for her. Now don't get me wrong, I haven't attended continusly, but when I have gone, she has never been a member, isn't now and probably won't be. She enjoys going to the conventions even though she doesn't actually hunt, just goes with me when I make a trip somewhere.
I think its a darn poor way to increase membership. It could backfire on them with others as it does with me.
I told her about on the phone tonight and her immediate response was, "I guess we won't be going anymore."

quote:

I just filled out on online survey that SCI sent.

Steve, I filled one out the other day, I was also very negative about spouses having to be members! And I'm not even married! I just don't think they need to go that route, it's not like they aren't making any money at the convention! I am a SCI member, have been since the 80's, but I feel they are going about this wrong, I hope our survey sinks in!

quote:

Originally posted by Widowmaker416:

quote:

I just filled out on online survey that SCI sent.

Steve, I filled one out the other day, I was also very negative about spouses having to be members! And I'm not even married! I just don't think they need to go that route, it's not like they aren't making any money at the convention! I am a SCI member, have been since the 80's, but I feel they are going about this wrong, I hope our survey sinks in!

I got an e-mail last week, Wed. maybe, asking me to be sure and get my survey back in. Wrote back to them I had not gotten a survey. Then said they would send one by an attachemnt. Still no survey. Maybe tomorrow, who knows, maybe never. If it ever comes and any such question is on it or a section for comments, they will damn sure here about this plan.

As a potential exhibitor, my experience with SCI has not been good. Applied for a booth a couple of years ago and they wouldn't/couldn't tell me whether they found my application "acceptable" until a couple of months before the show. They finally said I passed muster (my "donations" were apparently big enough, they require donations in addition to the very stiff booth rental). By that time, I had already reserved my booth at the Intl Sporting Arms Show which ran the same weekend so I had to decline. Haven't been back...frankly, I found the SCI folks to be slow at best and dare I say arrogant?

I would be interested in hearing from other vendors as to whether the show paid off for them..it's about $10K minimum when you consider airfare, air freight, booth, donation, hotel, meals etc. You have to gross at least $100K to make it worthwhile.

"I wouldn't join any club that would have me as a member"
........Groucho

quote:

Originally posted by Widowmaker416:

quote:

I just filled out on online survey that SCI sent.

Steve, I filled one out the other day, I was also very negative about spouses having to be members! And I'm not even married! I just don't think they need to go that route, it's not like they aren't making any money at the convention! I am a SCI member, have been since the 80's, but I feel they are going about this wrong, I hope our survey sinks in!

As you know, Ron, I don't take my wife to the SCI convention, but I also was quite negative in my response to their survey question. Like you, I hope the survey results sink in to some thick skulls in Tucson.

I was also very negative on their exorbitant prices for attendance and the fact they won't rotate the convention to other, more accessible cities like LV, Atlanta, Orlando, etc. Looks like I'll be a Dallas participant from now on. jorge

Got the same e-mail, filled out very negative on spouse being a member. I too made the reply they need to change locations, Reno is tough to fly into from Atlanta.
bobga

It costs SCI $1M more to have the Convention in Lost Wages, I don't know about the other venues.

Membership is up around to 50,000, which is 15,000 over the '99 numbers.

Most of the exhibitors have a booth every year, and new exhibitors are on the wait list until something opens up. That may be pretty close to the event.

The Convention is a fund raiser for SCI. The $ go to SCI's programs. No one else is as effective as SCI working for hunters worldwide. I have been on the Board before, and I expect I will again. They get at least an 80% good mark from me, and I complain about stuff I don't like.

jim

quote:

Originally posted by AfricanHunter:

quote:

Originally posted by Widowmaker416:

quote:

I just filled out on online survey that SCI sent.

Steve, I filled one out the other day, I was also very negative about spouses having to be members! And I'm not even married! I just don't think they need to go that route, it's not like they aren't making any money at the convention! I am a SCI member, have been since the 80's, but I feel they are going about this wrong, I hope our survey sinks in!

I got an e-mail last week, Wed. maybe, asking me to be sure and get my survey back in. Wrote back to them I had not gotten a survey. Then said they would send one by an attachemnt. Still no survey. Maybe tomorrow, who knows, maybe never. If it ever comes and any such question is on it or a section for comments, they will damn sure here about this plan.

My survey arrived tonight and I filled it out stating my views. I also sent an email letter to SCI about the issue.

I never got a survey either but I e-mailed them yesterday to give them my personal opinion on wives having to be SCI members to attend the convention.

Yes, it's true; they will have to be members this year to attend. A nonsubscribing membership is only $25 though which isn't quite as bad...I still may cancel my plans to go to the Reno convention.

This will be my 21st SCI convention. I've noticed in the past that some guys bring their nieces with them. Guess they'll have to be members now too
Rich Elliott

I just filled out the survey and have sent it back in. I too, commented on spouses and significant others having to join SCI to attend. I would rather attend with her than go alone, and we've had a great time there.

Suffice to say it is inappropriate to try to force people to join but I and my good wife are going anyways. I am fairly new to being a confirmed Africaphile but one Safari in 2004 has hooked me so we are booked for Tanzania and Namibia in 2007 and I am looking forward to meeting many of your in person in Reno!!!!!

"It costs SCI $1M more to have the Convention in Lost Wages, I don't know about the other venues. Membership is up around to 50,000, which is 15,000 over the '99 numbers. Most of the exhibitors have a booth every year, and new exhibitors are on the wait list until something opens up. That may be pretty close to the event. The Convention is a fund raiser for SCI. The $ go to SCI's programs. No one else is as effective as SCI working for hunters worldwide. I have been on the Board before, and I expect I will again. They get at least an 80% good mark from me, and I complain about stuff I don't like. jim"

Jim:

I agree with you entirely, except for the 50,000 membership number. The number of magazines mailed to paid "subscribers" published in Safari Magazine's statement of mailing (required for its 2nd class mailing permit) has never gone that high. The published number also includes a sizeable number of people who belong to several chapters and receive duplicate publications. As I've said, I've been gone seven years, so I don't know what's going on there now. However, there are all kinds of ways to puff membership numbers and I know for a fact that the SCI board has been wildly mislead about numbers in the past. I suspect the actual number of individual SCI members today is closer to 40,000 than 50,000.

Bill

I enjoy going to Las Vegas, it is a better convention town, IMHO, there are more hotels available at much more reasonable rates, more to do, better entertainment, cheaper meals, better weather in January (no ice and snow), and lots of discount airfares available, more flights from most major cities, I can easily save several hundred dollars. But, SCI saves $1,000,000 by staying in Reno. Let's see.......$1,000,000 divided by about 20,000 attendance at their last convention (per SCI), works out to $50 dollars a person. Better deal for who? Add the $50 to cost of getting in the door, and I still come out way ahead.

Here is the email chain I just completed regarding this.

My initial email:
Regarding the recent survey I returned, I feel compelled to comment on
the proposal to require spouses to be SCI members to attend the
convention. I am very much opposed to this. It makes one feel that
spouses are not welcome. I don't bring my wife with me to Reno, but I
can see others who do deciding not to attend the convention because of
this. Please reconsider this idea. It is one whose time has not come,
nor will it ever, and may be one of the dumbest ideas anyone in SCI has
come up with.



From: "Grimes, Libby" <LGrimes@safariclub.org>

Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 12:20 PM
Subject: RE: SCI - Question/Comment From the SCI Web Site Regarding Convention


Dear George,

I appreciate your comments and will pass them on. We have been getting a
lot of feedback and it is important to do so. It was necessary to get
the policy changes out early before registration begins in August so
that it wouldn't be a surprise for anyone attending. But, in reviewing
our attendee numbers it was decided that there was some abuse going on
with members and exhibitors bringing non-members into the show.

The policy is not meant to inhibit families from participating. It is
only necessary to insure that our show remains a member's only event.
During our recent planning meetings it was decided that all people
attending the show should be vested as an active member of some type.
There are several low cost and low maintenance ways for the second
member in a household to participate actively on the membership roles.
There is a non-subscribing membership available to spouses for $25 that
gives all of the membership benefits including convention access but no
double subscription fees. There is also a Sables membership for $30 that
includes a newsletter about the educationally-focused activities of our
Sables group. These ladies, although I must note that anyone can join
the Sables, are very instrumental in raising funds for SCI's educational
programs. These programs are necessary for our sport to continue and for
our youth to become involved. We can always use more members there to
help achieve those results. Remember, that youth 17 and under when
attending with an adult member are still free.

We really do want to keep our convention in the forefront as the leading
event to attend. Thank you for sharing your comments with us.

Kindest Regards,

Libby Grimes
SCI Convention Director
4800 W. Gates Pass Road
Tucson, AZ 85745
520/620-9313
520/906-4115 (cell)
lgrimes@safariclub.org

Join us January 24-27, 2007 in Reno to celebrate the 35th anniversary of
the Annual Hunters' Convention
SCI "Putting Hunters first for 35 Years.....and counting!"

My reply to Mz. Grimes email:
It appears that this decision is final, and it was already graven in stone before you sought input, Libby. I am sorry to have wasted your time. I sincerely hope that while we search for ways to take in more money in the short term, this decision doesn't cost our organization in the long run.

I too got a message from Grimes today. 3 paragraphs are word for word, but mine longer and contains other statements and pleas.

I understand they have a problem, but taking after wives isn't the solution.

If it is a problem, it is one of marketing. If they have a problem, it is in their own minds. I am trying to look at it from SCI's viewpoint. They see a wife at the convention who is not a member as lost dues (income). If you look at it from the perspective of the exhibitor, the wife represents another set of shopping eyes. In some cases, the wife is shopping for the same sort of thing her husband is shopping for, and sometimes she is not. Whatever the case, my guess is that wives at the convention represent money spent.

At the most, this will effect a few hundred people, but these are people you had better not Pizz off. I think what I object to the most is that they sent this survey around to "seek input," but the decision was already made. Why waste our time and theirs?

I think "making" spouses be members is going down the wrong track. I would suspect that most wives who attend are like mine and spend a lot of $$ on things I myself would most likely not buy? Creating a "premium" if you will for the spouse to attend will not be taken well by most of them!! Best to leave this situation alone. Let them come, let them shop and enjoy.

Larry Sellers, SCI Life Member

I agree Larry. My wife had me buying things last time that I wouldn't have bought myself. She was fascinated with the convention, but she is not a convert to regular hunting. So, why screw it all up?

I sent the survey back and also responded negatively. My view also is if wives or guests don't come the exhibitors will suffer. Is it beyond belief that this could make some exhibitors find an already expensive venue no longer worth their time. Also I think people do bring non-hunters to the convention who previously had no interest in hunting and they leave with a new outlook on our sport and perhaps a budding interest that they would not have had otherwise. And here's another thought. People even in our sport see SCI as an elitist rich guy's club and doesn't this spousal/guest membership thing just promote that negative image? This just pisses me off!

Mark

I agree that this is a poor idea. Actually a ridiculous idea IMHO.

I did want to comment on one other aspect. They have the convention in Reno rather than Vegas or some other place for a reason other than the money it costs to put on the show. The exhibitors complain that in Vegas, many people do not come to the show as there is so much to do away from the show. Sales are not as good. However, in Reno, there isn't much to do. More people go to the show and spend money there. I get this from my many friends who are long time exhibitors.

Face it, Reno is boring as hell. Might as well go to the show.

They need to take a page from the book of "The Shot Show". They have held The Shot Show in Las Vegas for a number of years (it's going to Orlando next year for some reason), and it broke new records for attendance every year that it was held in Las Vegas. Is there more to do in Vegas? Of course! Is the weather better there in January? No brainer. People are still going to attend the SCI convention and in addition, they will have the opportunity to do other things as well. Look at the NFR. It has gotten bigger every year that it has been held in Las Vegas. People attend that, but they also have a myriad of things to do in Vegas that you don't have in other places, including Reno. Las Vegas IS THE PLACE, but it sounds like SCI may have some backroom deal to keep it in Reno. I don't go for the excuse that it would cost them 1 million more in revenue. I am sure that they would make up for it by having it in Las Vegas.

Now I gotta get a memebrship to SCI to take my wife in. And thats in addition to the outrageous daily (or group rate if you go for more than 1 day). The way things are looking I might be better off maybe going to the Dallas show even if it does cost a bit more in travel expenses since its further from my home, Washington state,. The other comment about SCI appearing to be in part a "rich" mans club is also on the mark. I just got my copy of the lastest SCI magazine yesterday and its the "Awards" issue, all about those folks who have the $$ to spend on getting their names in print and getting big awards because they are such accomplished hunters. Okay, so some reconition for good animals may be due, but what about those hunters who are not "true" tophy (xx number inches or R&W score, or xx number of SCi points, etc.) hunters. I'll still probably go to the SCI show in Reno this Jan, I really want to talk with some of the outfitters/booking agents for my next Africa hunt, but if my wife needs a memebership to get in oin addition to everthing else, well she'll have more fun gambling in Reno and visiting with our son who attend college in central CA.

quote:

I really want to talk with some of the outfitters/booking agents for my next Africa hunt

Just go to Dallas as I've learned to do. Practically the same show and the same outfitters at one tenth the cost...jorge

Bill Q,

My wife and I are both members, and we participate in SCI's "one household" program, so we only get one copy of the publications. Of course that cuts their circulation numbers. I don't have any idea how many members do the same thing.

jim

I too replied that I thought it totally wrong to require the wife to be a member and I agree about the shopping portion, she buys her stuff and I buy mine. If this is already a done deal I believe that Dallas might be a nice new adventure.

Apparently this is not a totally done deal after all. It seems to be what those in charge would like to do, but they are getting some very negative feedback. I got this email today from Libby Grimes.

"Please don't shoot the messenger here I do want input so I can try to
bring it back to the right people. Thanks again and please stay in
touch. I appreciate your willingness to discuss this matter."

I encourage those of you who are members to email Mz. Grimes and let her know how you feel. Perhaps with a bit of pressure they will back off of this one.
lgrimes@safariclub.org

I do have a few more thoughts about membership. I believe in what SCI does and will continue to support the organization. If my wife wanted to attend, the extra $25 for her to become a member of sorts would not be a major thing, and I would probably do it. After all, I will be spending over $400 just for plane fare to go there. With motel rooms, meals, etc., I will drop a few bucks on just myself. Getting cheap about such an amount is equivalent to spending a bundle going on a hunt to Africa and then buying the cheapest WalMart ammo you can find to use there.
Just trying to be fair about the whole thing, while fighting for a repeal of it.

The three of us in the ERVS booth are Life Members. Between the booth rental agreement and the hunt donation we get enough exhibitors badges that our wives/girlfriends are also covered. The gals are a great help since we can stay in the booth while they forage for food..go get some one from another booth, etc.They even cover for us when we go to the mens room
It kind of goes against the grain to have to buy them a membership.
Rich Elliott

Jorge, I disagree with the statement that Dallas and Reno are practically the same show. I attended Dallas this year and Reno the year before. Reno has to be three times as large and when you add in the Custom Gunmakers Guild show you have a full three days.

The Dallas show is fun and there's time for people to visit with eachother. As I recall, there were around 700 exhibitors in Dallas last year.
We even had an AR get together at the Marriott which was twice the size as the previous year.
If Reno has gotten too expensive and too big, come to Dallas!!

John

As a long time member and exhibitor at both conventions may I say, "Welcome to Dallas!"
We are looking forward to seeing all of you there.
Booth 229 will do fine...Tuffpak, Alcoa Camo Wheels, great hunts in Namibia and other fine toys.
D/FW has plenty of flights to anywhere you wish to go.
The cost of attending the convention is inexpensive and everybody has a hell of a good time.
The convention will have over 700 exhibitors this year so as they say on the TV game show..."Come on down!" We will keep the light on for you.
AR members have a heck of a good time at DSC.

VFR1: Can't argue with your basic premise, yes Reno is many times bigger than Dallas, but if you hold to the basic premise of what the Convention is for, at least to me which is to meet outfitters, and book hunts, Dallas is practically the same show all you need. For 15 bucks a day, you can book with the world's top outfitters, taxidermists, and other concerns. The SCI cover charge is excessive, Reno costs much, much more to get into via commercial air and the local hotels jack up their prices just for the Convention. The Custom Guild is another issue alltogether and irrelevant to both Conventions. Hey it's my opinion and your money, but I've also gone to both accomplished the same goals for about 1/4th the cost of Reno. jorge