Contarian thought on DSC vs. SCI

[Rare Breed]

I do think weather permitting and last year was a fluke given I am an Atlanta native that DSC will be an excellent group of outfitters who are anxious to meet perspective clients. We will absolutely have an awesome time at our DSC AH dinner!!!

 

[Troubleshooter]

When did the CEO leave? I've seen nothing about that and see nothing about it on their website.

They sent out an email last week announcing the new Interim CEO.

 

[mdwest]

The question was about the show not the organization. The difference of perspective seems that everyone who lost the DSC Dallas show within driving distance now criticizes DSC show at every opportunity and props up TTHA show. The floor plan and list of exhibitors is posted for Atlanta. It’s still a significant show.

This is where you and I probably have a strong difference in opinion…

The show IS DSC..

DSC’s 2024 IRS 990 shows they brought in $8m for the entire year.

DSC’s own reporting shows they brought in right st $7m from the convention (booths, admission, auctions, membership renewals, etc)…

Without the show, DSC ceases to exist…

So… by your own admission, DSC is an organization with some problems…

Among them are a president that last year made a statement in front of multiple witnesses that was seen as incredibly negative about DSCs intended role in conservation vs its intent to be a “hunting club” and how they would market moving forward, and a now interim CEO that’s been in the middle of multiple controversies for a period of +/- 5 years….

Whether DSC’s 2026 show will be significant or another belly flop really isn’t the point being made.. although I’d maintain a large vendor list (albeit my much smaller then in years past) doesn’t make a show significant… the people showing up and spending money is what matters… if that fails again, the vendor list will continue to shrink, the auction donations will continue to shrink, etc…and the revenue ceases to exist.. vendors don’t make a show… consumers do…

The point being made is some (many?) people concern themselves with who on, and how their conservation dollars and time is spent..

While others may only concern themselves with the ease by which they might access an outfitter…

The other point being made (by several) it that it appears that there is little significant marketing being done, again… which was a huge bone of contention with vendors last year.. and considered to be a huge mistake made by DSC that contributed to the bad show … the weather was clearly outside of their control…

Which lends itself to the OPs question about whether or not DSC will have a large crowd, or if reaching vendors will be easy pickings like it was last year…

 

[375Fox]

This is where you and I probably have a strong difference in opinion…

The show IS DSC..

DSC’s 2024 IRS 990 shows they brought in $8m for the entire year.

DSC’s own reporting shows they brought in right st $7m from the convention (booths, admission, auctions, membership renewals, etc)…

Without the show, DSC ceases to exist…

So… by your own admission, DSC is an organization with some problems…

Among them are a president that last year made a statement in front of multiple witnesses that was seen as incredibly negative about DSCs intended role in conservation vs its intent to be a “hunting club” and how they would market moving forward, and a now interim CEO that’s been in the middle of multiple controversies for a period of +/- 5 years….

Whether DSC’s 2026 show will be significant or another belly flop really isn’t the point being made.. although I’d maintain a large vendor list (albeit my much smaller then in years past) doesn’t make a show significant… the people showing up and spending money is what matters… if that fails again, the vendor list will continue to shrink, the auction donations will continue to shrink, etc…and the revenue ceases to exist.. vendors don’t make a show… consumers do…

The point being made is some (many?) people concern themselves with who on, and how their conservation dollars and time is spent..

While others may only concern themselves with the ease by which they might access an outfitter…

The other point being made (by several) it that it appears that there is little significant marketing being done, again… which was a huge bone of contention with vendors last year.. and considered to be a huge mistake made by DSC that contributed to the bad show … the weather was clearly outside of their control…

Which lends itself to the OPs question about whether or not DSC will have a large crowd, or if reaching vendors will be easy pickings like it was last year…

I do not read your comments from the last year and think your primary concern is conservation dollars. You’ve gone out of your way to criticize Atlanta at every opportunity and discourage others from going. Your reasons seem petty. I hope this years show is successful for both the outfitters attending and DSC then they can move on from this drama. You seem to want it to fail to right a perceived wrong they did you even if it means one less hunting/conservation organization in the US.

 

[Hornedfrogbbq]

They fired their marketing firm that was largely responsible for their success for the prior several years, literally just weeks before the marketing campaign was supposed to start for ATL… and replaced them with a much, much lessor agency, that supposedly has connections with the new “interim” CEO (I don’t know that this is true, but I’ve heard it from more than one person), who failed them miserably..

Supposedly they now have yet another firm.. but my understanding is the new firm doesn’t have any significant experience in the outdoors industry…

We’re barely more than 2 months from the show… I’d be curious what anyone local to ATL (or the surrounding region) has seen or heard locally so far…

If they’re not doing a media blitz, hitting up radio stations, tv, billboards, etc now.. right as deer season is kicking off and hunters are getting prepped and excited about the season, they’ve already missed the boat again…

Facebook and instagram ain’t gonna cut it when you’re trying to appeal to a new locality that has likely never heard of you before and probably never considered hunting internationally before…

They need to remember… Texans are largely staying home that week.. they’ll either attend SCI a few weeks later, or will attend TTHA that same weekend… and while DSC has branched out and opened chapters and become a national organization, the bulk of their membership and bulk of their revenue still comes out of Texas and the immediate surrounding area..

If they aren’t seriously busting their asses to get folks local to GA, FL, AL, TN, etc to come. They’re dead before they even try to get started…

Remember SCI is just 2 weeks later and just a few hours up the road from ATL… I guarantee SCI is bombarding the middle and east TN markets as well as north AL, north GA, etc (the same markets DSC should be trying to appeal heavily to right now)…

I don't think TTHA is the same weekend. It is January 9th - 11th while DSC is Feb 6th - 8th.

I didn't really mean this to be a thread supporting or bashing DSC. Their leadership changes i think are very telling but I do agree with their last President, we need DSC and every conservation loving organization we can have. More education for the public, more information for conservationists/hunters, etc.

Am I bummed it isn't in Dallas and a 40 minute drive from my house? Yep. But I learn so much amd enjoy these shows that I am willing to travel to them...but probably only one of them. So then my scales are weighing a bigger show with more vendors and attendees at SCI or a smaller (but still significant show) at DSC.

I like Nash-Vegas more than Atlanta but have never been to an SCI show. Weighing my options.

 

[mdwest]

I do not read your comments from the last year and think your primary concern is conservation dollars. You’ve gone out of your way to criticize Atlanta at every opportunity and discourage others from going. Your reasons seem petty. I hope this years show is successful for both the outfitters attending and DSC then they can move on from this drama. You seem to want it to fail to right a perceived wrong they did you even if it means one less hunting/conservation organization in the US.

I haven’t criticized ATL.. I used to live 3 hours from ATL and spent a lot of time there when I was in the area… I was also stationed at Ft Benning at different times for training (2 hours drive) and frequented ATL a lot during those periods as well… there are parts of the city I really enjoy.. and I grew up in, and was a cop in Memphis for more than a decade.. ATL crime is child’s play compared to Memphis.. it doesn’t concern me in the least…

I have very clearly criticized DSC, and have criticized their decision making process related to ATL (obviously a bad decision that got them a lot of negative feedback) and their lack of communication, false communication, poor marketing, and refusal to take corrective action..

The reasons for criticism may seem petty to you.

As evidenced by numerous others commenting both here and on another high volume international hunting forum, and numerous at length threads created here and thst other location by numerous others related to DSCs antics, poor decisions, poor leadership, and poor communication, it would appear you’re in the minority..

DSC warrants criticism. They’ve earned it. No different than the NRA did.. when the organization stops making bad decisions and corrects its leadership problems, much like the NRA has recently attempted to do, the criticism will most likely go away… until then, rest assured it will continue, much like it did with the NRA for more than a decade…

I completely agree that we need conservation agencies and organizations… we need GOOD ones that actually have hunting and conservation at the forefront of its goals and objectives.. I’ve stated numerous times that I hope DSC will find its way back to being one of those organizations… (as have several others here)… we also need a GOOD 2A rights organization… out of the NRA’s long running series of disasters GOA, FPA, and other organizations no one ever heard of before rose to a level of significance… in the case of DSCs ongoing disasters SCI has begun booming again and TTHA has started to emerge nationally rather than as just a state focused organization (with the obvious help from SCI)…

What we don’t need are BAD organizations that claim to be conservation focused and claim to efficiently spend donated dollars on the correct efforts, that actually push people away from the sport or that have leadership focused on their own agendas rather than the agendas prioritized by membership (do some research on the controversy related to the OHAA award and how it relates to much of the other controversy’s already discussed)…

Again, you don’t have to like it… you can believe it’s petty… that’s your prerogative.. you can spend your hard earned dollars anywhere you like… that’s your prerogative as well… clearly many others don’t believe it’s petty, many others are refusing to spend their dollars on DSC, and many others are being vocal about both their past concerns and present problems with the organization..

I don’t mind at all being among the latter… perhaps at some point it will inspire change, much like it did with the NRA…

silence certainly won’t get hunters and conservation minded folks anything other than more of the same, which is unsatisfactory… again, by your own admission DSC has problems it needs to fix.. they dont appear to be making any attempt to fix them…

You can also continue to debate… I actually encourage that as it brings more attention to the problems and allows more people to see and hear about them, to include people new to international hunting and/or new to joining and spending their money and volunteer hours with these types of organizations… they deserve to know who and what they are dealing with…

I can think of two very active members here that joined DSC (one as a life member) just a few months before everything publicly fell apart last year that have expressed regret in not knowing what was going on within the organization, and had they known, they wouldn’t have joined…

So yeah… petty, not petty, doesn’t really matter… DSC continues down the same path that’s been criticized for over and over again, either outright ignoring its membership or at a minimum publicly refusing to address those problems and concerns.. so membership continues to criticize…

Ending the cycle is pretty easy to do… DSC just doesn’t appear to be willing to do it…

 

[crackerman]

I went to DSC in 24 and SCI in 25 after Atlanta was a weather debacle.

I liked the DSC bit more as DSC seemed more "everyman" and SCI seemed more "high-end" to me. The feelings are mine, as all but one travel vendor was very nice to me at both shows. It also helps that I get into DSC for free on the first responder and veteran courtesy that they extend.

I was shopping in 2024 and am beginning "shopping" for 2027 safaris for my son and I want to speak to outftters face to face.

So from a show perspective DSC seems to work better for me, but I am a member of only SCI.

 

[dogcat1]

Also, at the end of it all, the various shows by the critter clubs (RMEF, WSF, NRA, SCI, DSC and so on) make their money off shows and specifically off foot traffic and forced donations by exhibitors. If you look at the balance sheets of the various critter clubs you will see that they spend an enormous amount of money raising money and for overhead. Ask - what percentage of your total revenue goes to "conservation". The answers will suprise you. Not that much. DU probably has the highest percentage of money raised that goes to "conservation", but does any of it do any real good???

Well, that is the question. For DU a wet winter means lots of water in breeding areas, then in turn, lots of ducks.... For Wild Sheep, take a look at the latest issue of their magazine and review the sheep numbers in North America over the last 20 years. Not much to see except Mexicio where high fence sheep hunting has truly caught on. Weather in Alaska determines Dall sheep numbers, not your money.

So, do we as the hunting public continue to fund $300,000 per year CEO's at each of these orgs (there are over 100 that I can name) in hopes that somehow our dollars actuallly help?

Further, if you want to see money actually work - look at long term anti-poaching work in various African countries. That seems to work.

Next go to Asia where conservation is not high on the radar. The sheep there are subject to the whims of the governments and their need for cash.

Next, go to New Zealand. No limits, no boundaries on any big game. There seems to be plenty and the outfitters are doing reasonably well. No critter clubs on the ground there.

Now, go to most of the hunting countries in civilized Europe. Again, the landowners manage "conservation" for profit and sell meat in the local butcher shops. The system seems to work well in a highly populated area where we hunt.

Now go to Texas where conservation groups are everywhere. The ranchers manage game for profit and the African/Asian game in Texas is plentiful... for a price. No serious conservation other than by ranchers, lease holders and deer farmers.

Now go the Rocky Mountain states where they sell sheep tags for enormous money as well as premium elk and antelope tags. Are sheep numbers increasing? No. Is there more and better access to elk areas?? Depends on what our government does with access to BLM land.

So, all of this to say - are the critter clubs truly helping? To a small degree I would say yes, but their overall impact is not terribly significant..

Prove me wrong....

 

[mdwest]

Also, at the end of it all, the various shows by the critter clubs (RMEF, WSF, NRA, SCI, DSC and so on) make their money off shows and specifically off foot traffic and forced donations by exhibitors. If you look at the balance sheets of the various critter clubs you will see that they spend an enormous amount of money raising money and for overhead. Ask - what percentage of your total revenue goes to "conservation". The answers will suprise you. Not that much. DU probably has the highest percentage of money raised that goes to "conservation", but does any of it do any real good???

Well, that is the question. For DU a wet winter means lots of water in breeding areas, then in turn, lots of ducks.... For Wild Sheep, take a look at the latest issue of their magazine and review the sheep numbers in North America over the last 20 years. Not much to see except Mexicio where high fence sheep hunting has truly caught on. Weather in Alaska determines Dall sheep numbers, not your money.

So, do we as the hunting public continue to fund $300,000 per year CEO's at each of these orgs (there are over 100 that I can name) in hopes that somehow our dollars actuallly help?

Further, if you want to see money actually work - look at long term anti-poaching work in various African countries. That seems to work.

Next go to Asia where conservation is not high on the radar. The sheep there are subject to the whims of the governments and their need for cash.

Next, go to New Zealand. No limits, no boundaries on any big game. There seems to be plenty and the outfitters are doing reasonably well. No critter clubs on the ground there.

Now, go to most of the hunting countries in civilized Europe. Again, the landowners manage "conservation" for profit and sell meat in the local butcher shops. The system seems to work well in a highly populated area where we hunt.

Now go to Texas where conservation groups are everywhere. The ranchers manage game for profit and the African/Asian game in Texas is plentiful... for a price. No serious conservation other than by ranchers, lease holders and deer farmers.

Now go the Rocky Mountain states where they sell sheep tags for enormous money as well as premium elk and antelope tags. Are sheep numbers increasing? No. Is there more and better access to elk areas?? Depends on what our government does with access to BLM land.

So, all of this to say - are the critter clubs truly helping? To a small degree I would say yes, but their overall impact is not terribly significant..

Prove me wrong....

Some strong and valid points there..

Although I'd say $300K is on the light side for most of these organizations.. which amazes me based on the size of them...

DSC = $8M in annual revenue.. CEO salary per the last 990 was $339K
Sheep = $14.4M with a CEO salary of $376K
SCI = $15M with a CEO salary of $425K
DU = $302M (HUGE by comparison with others) with CEO at $622K
Wild Turkey = $63M with CEO at $355K

Dont get me wrong.. attracting and retaining talent is important.. you dont want people running multi-million dollar organizations that dont have the experience or capability to do so.. When I identify talent that I think my organization really needs, how much we are willing to pay is always an issue to discuss.. but honestly its pretty far down the bottom of the list.. good talent is hard to come by.. and it is expensive..

but... compare those comp plans to the comp plans of appointed CEOs (not entrepreneur owners) of similar sized businesses in a variety of other industries.. and then compare them to the comp plans of appointed CEO's in other non profits/charitable organizations... clearly the outdoors/conservation space is an extremely high comp plan field for executive class personnel (look at the 990's for the next tier down in management in those organizations.. those guys are highly compensated as well comparatively)..

It should be noted that most of the 2A organizations are similar.. the NRA 990 for 2023 (last full year LaPierre was in charge) is straight up alarming...

$176M in revenue... $209M in expenses.. Waynes salary was $1.175M plus he picked up an additional $110K in compensation (my guess is thats mostly bonuses and/or taxable perks)..

FPC brought in about $8M.. its CEO is paid $330K...

There are some notable exceptions though in 2A (although not a lot).. Guns of America for example brought in $9.6M.. its CEO is paid $132K...

 

[Russ16]

Some strong and valid points there..

Although I'd say $300K is on the light side for most of these organizations.. which amazes me based on the size of them...

DSC = $8M in annual revenue.. CEO salary per the last 990 was $339K
Sheep = $14.4M with a CEO salary of $376K
SCI = $15M with a CEO salary of $425K
DU = $302M (HUGE by comparison with others) with CEO at $622K
Wild Turkey = $63M with CEO at $355K

Dont get me wrong.. attracting and retaining talent is important.. you dont want people running multi-million dollar organizations that dont have the experience or capability to do so.. When I identify talent that I think my organization really needs, how much we are willing to pay is always an issue to discuss.. but honestly its pretty far down the bottom of the list.. good talent is hard to come by.. and it is expensive..

but... compare those comp plans to the comp plans of appointed CEOs (not entrepreneur owners) of similar sized businesses in a variety of other industries.. and then compare them to the comp plans of appointed CEO's in other non profits/charitable organizations... clearly the outdoors/conservation space is an extremely high comp plan field for executive class personnel (look at the 990's for the next tier down in management in those organizations.. those guys are highly compensated as well comparatively)..

It should be noted that most of the 2A organizations are similar.. the NRA 990 for 2023 (last full year LaPierre was in charge) is straight up alarming...

$176M in revenue... $209M in expenses.. Waynes salary was $1.175M plus he picked up an additional $110K in compensation (my guess is thats mostly bonuses and/or taxable perks)..

FPC brought in about $8M.. its CEO is paid $330K...

There are some notable exceptions though in 2A (although not a lot).. Guns of America for example brought in $9.6M.. its CEO is paid $132K...

I'm in the trade association and advocacy world. Those CEO salaries are actually low vs what is frequently seen. DU for instance is about the size of the National Restaurant Assoc. whose CEO is close to $2 million. Many associations in the $10-$15 million revenue range pay CEOs close to $1 million a year.

I would say that one of the failings of conservation organizations and 2A organizations is that they recruit people with industry or conservation experience who aren't actually good executives. They weren't trained to be business leaders they were trained as conservationists or advocacy professionals and don't always do a good job at actually running the organization.

I don't know any association professional who would pursue any of the jobs you listed if they were open. Mainly because the comp is low and it isn't seen as a good job.

The recent opening at Pheasants Forever is a great example. The pay was not competitive for an organization of that size and they hired a board member. She's great and I think doing a good job but very few associations would make a move like that.

 

[Field28]

I'm thinking about going to both. Atlanta is a six hour drive for me, Nashville about a ten hour drive. Thinking of driving to Atl and flying to Nashville, spend a couple more days there.

I've seen a vendor list by booth location on the DSC site, don't see the same on SCI. Anyone seen a vendor list for SCI?

 

[mdwest]

I've seen a vendor list by booth location on the DSC site, don't see the same on SCI. Anyone seen a vendor list for SCI?

I dont think they have published it yet... I could be wrong, but I think SCI usually publishes around mid November?

 

[Field28]

I dont think they have published it yet... I could be wrong, but I think SCI usually publishes around mid November?

10 4, Thanks!!!

 

[mdwest]

I would say that one of the failings of conservation organizations and 2A organizations is that they recruit people with industry or conservation experience who aren't actually good executives. They weren't trained to be business leaders they were trained as conservationists or advocacy professionals and don't always do a good job at actually running the organization.

Very valid.. Ive definitely seen the same sort of thing across conservation and 2A.. you end up with a lot of lawyers and lobbyists running 2A organizations (LaPierre was an academic, then a political scientist and then a lobbyist before moving into an executive position at the NRA as an example).. and you end up with a a lot of conservationists and/or biologists running wildlife organizations (Corey, the former DSC CEO was a wildlife biologist in TX prior to coming to DSC)..

and rarely do the lawyers, lobbyists, conservationists, etc.. have any actual business experience to speak of prior to coming into leadership roles in those organizations.. which is problematic.. because even a "non profit" is a business and must be run like one.. although admittedly a few of them transition well and are able to make things happen for their organizations...

 

[30-06Ken]

I live in Northern Illinois outside of Chicago and I am seeing ads daily for SCI in Nashville. Nothing for DSC in Atlanta.

 

[uplander01]

All I would add is that all trade shows are a money grab, if it's a show that is beneficial to people it makes sense, but if not, waste of time and money....Been going to some type of industry trade show 2-3 times a year for the last 30 years.

And....Atlanta sucks as a destination IMO, I'll never go there again unless I absolutely have to.

 

[Rare Breed]

I went to DSC in 24 and SCI in 25 after Atlanta was a weather debacle.

I liked the DSC bit more as DSC seemed more "everyman" and SCI seemed more "high-end" to me. The feelings are mine, as all but one travel vendor was very nice to me at both shows. It also helps that I get into DSC for free on the first responder and veteran courtesy that they extend.

I was shopping in 2024 and am beginning "shopping" for 2027 safaris for my son and I want to speak to outftters face to face.

So from a show perspective DSC seems to work better for me, but I am a member of only SCI.

I think your perspective is fair about DSC more everyman versus SCI high end. While the outfitters are pretty much the same I would bet more expensive safaris and guns sold at show are higher at SCI and this is not due to numbers but income of clients. Both are great and I look forward to both each year!!!

 

[wesheltonj]

Putting aside the DSC membership drama here's my take.

DSC first big show, you have the choice of dates and reasonably price entrance. DFW great airport. Traffic is not too bad from DFW to Downtown Dallas for the Metroplex. Plus you have Love Field even easier to Downtown. ATL is also a great airport to change planes. Traffic is a bitch in Atlanta and that was 15 years ago, I can only guess it's not any better. When the show goes to Houston, IAH is a chopped up mess of terminals, traffic is a bitch to downtown Houston, You also have Hobby, not as bad traffic to downtown. Really only two hotels to stay at when a George Brown anything else is a commute.

SCI, it appears that the shows home for a while is Nashville. Show is very expensive entry, best dates are already gone. Lots of hotels walking distance, Broadway has great after hours entertainment options. Airport is Marginal.

TTHA, would not have that show if not for the mismanagement at DSC. SCI/TTHA controls the earliest dates. The outfitters that attend TTHA will have the best dates available. Remains to be seen if TTHA show is the death knoll for the DSC show. If it is, I can certainly see a merger of DSC/HSC to regain a bigger show alternating Dallas & Houston.

 

[Rare Breed]

Interesting and I only have my TTHA experience from 10 years ago. It was the world’s greatest white tail deer hunting show with very little Africa outfitters. I would bet for my GA brethren it is still viewed that way. Funny just as my TX friends struggle to understand DSC temporarily being in Atlanta I struggle to think of Africa outfitters at TTHA, just me

 

[Philip Glass]

As much as I dislike Atlanta and last year (my first) was a Batton Death March, I want as much personal attention and FaceTime as I can get with different outfitters. In that context, I think SCI is potentially going to be a goat rodeo and DSC could be much much smaller. I am unsure if some outfitters simply have written off DSC (in total or at least in Atlanta) and thus the show will be less attended by both hunters (which would be great) AND outfitters (less is worse).

Thoughts? I like to zig when others zag.

Do what you wish but THE PARTY will be in Nashville!