2019 Safari Club International Show Summary

[JTT]

For us it is a matter of time. With all the shows going on in January, it is impossible to take the month off work to go to all of them. It is a busy time for work with the end of year closings, taxes, etc. We have to chose one.
For us DSC is the better fit, cheaper, and all the exhibitors that we want to talk to are at both SCI and DSC. Venue location is not really a deciding factor as we will have to fly to all of them.
It would be my hope that all hunters have the opportunity, with the selection of shows available, to be able to attend at least one of them. I also believe that we should be involved in as may of the organizations as possible. They are all needed in our fight for conservation. Some may be doing more than others but they all need our support

 

[One Day...]

@One Day... I will say there are a lot of discussions going on, and I am not sure who you overheard, but in regards to item #2) I will say that the information you overheard isn't even close to being accurate in regards to any sort of penalties, changes being made, etc. I'm not sure where that came from, but I am never surprised to hear some far fetched rumor, etc. floating around. In regards to the statement about airlines asking folks to leave a day early is another piece of erroneous information as we worked with the airport authority to provide more airlift which worked well for me as there were direct flights from Atlanta to Reno which is something we haven't had in quite while. I do appreciate you all providing feedback and attending the show and I hope those who haven't attended will give it a go.

Hello Paul;

Thank you for addressing two points I made in my report to the community.

Allow me to refresh the fact that I also said:

4) I did not experience any administrative or logistics shortcomings, and I have not observed any empty booth.

5) Despite the low attendance, Huntershill Safari got better bookings than last year in Vegas (which were already good for what I understand)...

6) I stayed at the Peppermill Casino where the banquets and award ceremonies took place and they seemed well attended.

I would say that it was overall a great show but that the winter storm on the east coast probably deprived it of a big chunk of visitors on Saturday, and that anything in Reno will be smaller than the same thing in Vegas...

So I hope that my report did not come across as negative, because it was not, and it was not meant to be.

Regarding the two points that you commented on:

The discussion I overheard was in one the shuttle buses going back to the Peppermill and involved a Lady who was wearing an SCI badge. I do not know who she was, or her position in the organization, and I do not know the details of the discussion but I confirm what I heard. Whether it is true or not I have no opinion, and I have made clear in my report that I just overheard a discussion. I did not pass judgement on it. This being said, as a business owner who attended for almost 20 years close over 50 professional electronic trade shows all over the country, including Vegas and Reno, the discussion did not surprise me as it is within the rationale of how such events are organized. Whether the amount discussed was over-exaggerated or not, I do not know, but the logic did not strike me as ridiculous, and I certainly did not mean to be negative; this is just how the shows business works.

Regarding the comment about the airlines calling customers to fly out, apparently Jerome (AfricaHunting.com) heard it too. Since I decided to drive to Reno, I did not receive a call personally, but I was told by several unconnected people on Saturday about them receiving airline calls or text messages. I do not think that Jerome would invent it, neither do I. Again, there is no negative inference on SCI, you guys hardly control the weather, but I do believe that at least some folks were contacted by airlines/travel agencies/etc.

In summary, SCI put a great, well organized 2019 show together, as usual. Weather not cooperating on the East Coast is truly out of anyone's control, and there is no escaping the fact that Reno is less attractive to many than Vegas - which very rationally explains why it is less expensive ;-)

And I absolutely believe you, because I have been in your position before, that clients will vehemently argue for a less expensive solution ... until they experience that - duuuhh! - they get less product/service (in this case: attendance) when they pay less

And I can also predict that this lesson will be promptly forgotten by the exhibitors after a year or two of higher Vegas costs - if SCI returns to Vegas in 2022, as I bet you will. In so many words, there are cases where truly one can't win: how do you get Vegas attendance at Reno's costs? Answer: you don't

Thanks
Pascal

 

[BRICKBURN]

This plagerized from another board, but ......
....... And a very disturbing one.....appears SCI is a farce ........

If you are a member of SCI perhaps you can contact the office and ask them about their goals and procedures.

If you have a question for SCI please do post it HERE.
Do not SPAM every SCI thread with the same post.

https://www.africahunting.com/threads/sci-questions-and-suggestions-make-them-here.42340/

 

[JGRaider]

It's been posted twice, hardly spam my friend. I'm curious if the good folks at AHF have any issues with this spending policy. Is that what you sign up for when paying dues to SCI?

 

[BRICKBURN]

@JGRaider Are you a member of SCI?

 

[JGRaider]

Yes I am, but since 40% of their income goes to pay salaries and operating expenses I will likely not renew. I expect more of my money to go to conservation and other good causes for the hunter, not some VP in the office.

 

[Hogpatrol]

No dog in this hunt but it does take a lot of $$$$ to lobby.

 

[wesheltonj]

I am a member, and would like to see how all that overhead breaks down. I certainly understand that paying lawyers is not cheap especially for DC, but 40% sounds very high.

 

[Royal27]

Yes I am, but since 40% of their income goes to pay salaries and operating expenses I will likely not renew. I expect more of my money to go to conservation and other good causes for the hunter, not some VP in the office.

Serious question - what would you like the % to be and what would you suggest be cut in order to get there? As an example, would you prefer to start by cutting the lawyers and lobbyists or just the administrative staff? Probably much easier to get down to 20% by cutting all of the folks who try and stem the tide in Washington, don't you think?

My point is, 40% sounds high, but is it? Kinda depends on the goal doesn't it? And their goal isn't just to funnel conservation dollars directly to the field. It takes smart people to deal with the people in Washington and to fight the antis, neither of which is cheap, nor should someone be expected to do that for free. Cutting salaries too deeply as it's own risks as well. Do you really want PETA and HSUS to have far more qualified lobbyists than SCI? The cuts you seem to want just might make that happen.

https://www.classy.org/blog/low-nonprofit-salaries-costing-you-money/
.

From the SCI website:

"Safari Club International is a U.S.-based organization of more than 50,000 hunters dedicated to protecting the right to hunt and to promote wildlife conservation worldwide. Between SCI and its sister organization, the SCI Foundation, we have put more than $70 Million on the ground for conservation since 2000. In the U.S. and abroad, hunters are part of a system that keeps the rivers, forests and fields intact and maintains the wildlife."


I'm not defending SCI. I think they have some serious problems internally to deal with. I also think that zeroing in on one number like "40%" and using that alone to make a decision is no different than an anti screaming "OMG they want to kill FIVE HUNDRED elephants in Zimbabwe!!!!!" It sounds like an awful lot, until you realize it equates to .5%.

Everyone should make sure that they understand all of the facts. Things are often not as cut and dry as they may seem.

 

[BRICKBURN]

Yes I am, but since 40% of their income goes to pay salaries and operating expenses I will likely not renew. I expect more of my money to go to conservation and other good causes for the hunter, not some VP in the office.

How much time have you volunteered on SCI projects in the last year?

 

[jeff]

Royal27, you hit nail on the head with that insightful post!!

 

[JGRaider]

How much time have you volunteered on SCI projects in the last year?

20 hrs per month here in W TX. How about you?

 

[JGRaider]

Royal, I know the foundation that I sit on will not give money to any organization with more than 20% of income going to salaries, bonuses, perks, etc. SCI has become much like the Red Cross........less and less money making it to the places that really need it. I've been a member for a long time, but see it becoming less and less effective due to poor leadership and egos.

 

[K-man]

A few years back I sat on a board that did international rescue work (similar to Red Cross) that was mostly volunteer based. Our budget was 98% funding on the ground, less than 2% for administration expenses. We were actually denied access to some countries because we didn't spend enough on full-time administration. Strange how people think sometimes about where your money goes. I wish we could get away from the situation we have created with lobbying. It has become the status quo, where the people we are paying to do the job (politicians) are getting paid for their vote. I don't have a better solution, just naïve to think it can be changed.

 

[Royal27]

Royal, I know the foundation that I sit on will not give money to any organization with more than 20% of income going to salaries, bonuses, perks, etc.

OK, that answers the first part of my question. At 37% salaries etc SCI is 17% too high for your foundation. I will assume that your foundation supports truly charitable organizations (which I'd argue SCI is not in the traditional sense, although they do give some charity). I point that out as the comparison is likely apples to oranges. Assuming though that you do firmly believe 20% is the right salary % for SCI, here comes the hard part. Where should the 17% be cut and why?

SCI has become much like the Red Cross........less and less money making it to the places that really need it. I've been a member for a long time, but see it becoming less and less effective due to poor leadership and egos.

I agree with the bolded completely. No argument at all and I think the fact that you hear a lot of grumblings about SCI and very little against, say DSC, helps to prove that out. They have changes to make internally and the old guard is obviously out of touch (or simply doesn't care) and fighting change all the way.

As far as the Red cross comparison I don't know that I'm with you there as I simply don't know enough about the salaries and how they are actually spent. To my original point I think it also depends on what the actual purpose of the organization is. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but you seem to feel that SCI should be all about boots on the ground funding to conservation. If I'm correct in this assumption then I'm honestly not sure why you didn't quit SCI long ago as that isn't what they primarily do, and certainly not solely. And, under this assumption 37% salary is absolutely too high.

Purpose Statement cut directly from SCI 2016 IRS Form 990:

Now since the stated primary purpose of SCI is protection of hunter rights, promotion of hunting, hunter advocacy, and education is 37% still too high? I'm not sure, but it's definitely requires a different allocation of funds than an organization such as the Red Cross who's mission statement is to provide direct assistance to those in need.

The devil is always in the details!

 

[Wheels]

OK, that answers the first part of my question. At 37% salaries etc SCI is 17% too high for your foundation. I will assume that your foundation supports truly charitable organizations (which I'd argue SCI is not in the traditional sense, although they do give some charity). I point that out as the comparison is likely apples to oranges. Assuming though that you do firmly believe 20% is the right salary % for SCI, here comes the hard part. Where should the 17% be cut and why?



I agree with the bolded completely. No argument at all and I think the fact that you hear a lot of grumblings about SCI and very little against, say DSC, helps to prove that out. They have changes to make internally and the old guard is obviously out of touch (or simply doesn't care) and fighting change all the way.

As far as the Red cross comparison I don't know that I'm with you there as I simply don't know enough about the salaries and how they are actually spent. To my original point I think it also depends on what the actual purpose of the organization is. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but you seem to feel that SCI should be all about boots on the ground funding to conservation. If I'm correct in this assumption then I'm honestly not sure why you didn't quit SCI long ago as that isn't what they primarily do, and certainly not solely. And, under this assumption 37% salary is absolutely too high.

Purpose Statement cut directly from SCI 2016 IRS Form 990:

View attachment 266127

Now since the stated primary purpose of SCI is protection of hunter rights, promotion of hunting, hunter advocacy, and education is 37% still too high? I'm not sure, but it's definitely requires a different allocation of funds than an organization such as the Red Cross who's mission statement is to provide direct assistance to those in need.

The devil is always in the details!

I was looking to give some money away this year. Would this foundation be a good organization to make a donation to?

http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/27...0-percent-of-its-budget-on-charitable-grants/


Exerpt from article.

In 2013, The Clinton Foundation Only Spent 10 Percent Of Its Budget On Charitable Grants
Hillary Clinton's non-profit spent more on office supplies and rent than it did on charitable grants

 

[JGRaider]

20 hrs per month here in W TX. How about you?

You must have missed this Brickburn........how about you?

 

[Paul Babaz]

@Hogpatrol I agree we should have more a presence at the show, especially since NRA took it over as it's my understanding it is much better show under their leadership. The only issue is timing as there is so much overlap. We have a couple of chapters in the area and I believe they used to man a booth, but I can honestly say, I need to follow up to see if they still do or intend to do so. Thank you for making this suggestion and bringing it back to our attention.

Good Hunting, Paul

 

[Paul Babaz]

@TTundra I know how you feel as there are so many shows in January, and they continue with chapter events, etc. The timing of shows is always tough and we always make a point to coordinate our dates so we avoid as much conflict as possible and we book our dates 4 years + out as most do in order to be able secure dates. Vegas for example is such a big convention town, you have to book at least 4 years out to secure the dates you'd like and even then the dates are limited. We make a point to huddle with the other groups to make sure we don't overlap or are too close together. Unfortunately, sometimes other's dates may change and we are locked into dates. Thanks for the comments!

Good Hunting, Paul

 

[Paul Babaz]

@Ridge Top Ranch Thanks for the comment, I understand what you are saying and have to agree in a lot of cases. This is true for all businesses, industries. All we can do is, continue to try to do better, learn from mistakes, and take constructive criticism to see how we can use it to be better.

Good Hunting, Paul