2019 Safari Club International Show Summary

[Wheels]

@Paul Babaz Thank you for coming back on AH and addressing a few items. Your time is appreciated.

One of the biggest problems hunters have to deal with, is there is no "Face" of hunting. There is no person like Charleton Heston was for the NRA, or like Dana Loesch is now. Let's take Cecil the lion as an example. In my opinion, SCI made a terrible response when Cecil went pandemic. First, SCI backed away from Dr. Palmer, revoked his membership and didn't want to respond to any media, just hoping things would die down and go away. As a hunter, I was completely disgusted with SCI for their response. John Jackson was about the only hunter who would go on the media and tell the real story of Cecil. I have a tremendous amount of respect for Jackson. He did a good job, but while he knows the facts, he is not a professional speaker.

SCI needs a spokesman hunter who is willing to be the face of hunting for the next 20 years. This person needs to be handsome/pretty, intelligent, well spoken and have the ability to think on their feet. This person needs to be in D.C. or NYC. They need to bombard the media with conservation related news releases every couple of weeks. They need to be willing to step in front of any microphone at any moment to address any issue regarding hunting. If faced with a new Cecil, they need to know the players all over the world, or know people in the industry, so with a couple of phone calls, they can figure out the truth's and the lies. Cecil was all about lies, and SCI allowed the lies to be perpetrated instead of being the voice of conservation, common sense, reason and the TRUTH. Within 3-4 days, most of us on AH and AR knew the lies. Some of us had been in contact with outfitters in Zimbabwe. We could counter the six to eight lies that were told and repeated constantly by the main stream media. SCI didn't try to respond to any of these as I recall.

There are news organizations and reporters who would contact an SCI spokesman in a situation like Cecil since they would know who he is. That spokesman could then help completely change the narrative with reasonable people and with people looking to know the truth.

Thanks again for being willing to come on AH and listen to our suggestions, and complaints.

 

[Red Leg]

@Paul Babaz Thank you for coming back on AH and addressing a few items. Your time is appreciated.

One of the biggest problems hunters have to deal with, is there is no "Face" of hunting. There is no person like Charleton Heston was for the NRA, or like Dana Loesch is now. Let's take Cecil the lion as an example. In my opinion, SCI made a terrible response when Cecil went pandemic. First, SCI backed away from Dr. Palmer, revoked his membership and didn't want to respond to any media, just hoping things would die down and go away. As a hunter, I was completely disgusted with SCI for their response. John Jackson was about the only hunter who would go on the media and tell the real story of Cecil. I have a tremendous amount of respect for Jackson. He did a good job, but while he knows the facts, he is not a professional speaker.

SCI needs a spokesman hunter who is willing to be the face of hunting for the next 20 years. This person needs to be handsome/pretty, intelligent, well spoken and have the ability to think on their feet. This person needs to be in D.C. or NYC. They need to bombard the media with conservation related news releases every couple of weeks. They need to be willing to step in front of any microphone at any moment to address any issue regarding hunting. If faced with a new Cecil, they need to know the players all over the world, or know people in the industry, so with a couple of phone calls, they can figure out the truth's and the lies. Cecil was all about lies, and SCI allowed the lies to be perpetrated instead of being the voice of conservation, common sense, reason and the TRUTH. Within 3-4 days, most of us on AH and AR knew the lies. Some of us had been in contact with outfitters in Zimbabwe. We could counter the six to eight lies that were told and repeated constantly by the main stream media. SCI didn't try to respond to any of these as I recall.

There are news organizations and reporters who would contact an SCI spokesman in a situation like Cecil since they would know who he is. That spokesman could then help completely change the narrative with reasonable people and with people looking to know the truth.

Thanks again for being willing to come on AH and listen to our suggestions, and complaints.

Sorry I came back to this thread after @Paul Babaz had to get on with his life and important work. On another of our discussions, I strongly supported him for the NRA Board - hope that is successful because it will be a small step in uniting "shooters" and hunters.

I think the percentage of overhead is a spurious argument. SCI is not the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, or, thank God, the Clinton Foundation. I think @Royal27 said it well, but to reiterate, SCI is not really a charitable donation. It is an organization of like minded individuals who pool their resources to protect a specific set of issues. That is much more akin to a Political Action Committee than a charity. One should anticipate that the majority of contributions would go to expertise in fighting the good fight than to say blue duffel bags. I am frankly pleasantly surprised that they are able to devote as much of their resources as they do to something other than lawyers and lobbyists. And if you will dig into Paul's professional background and day job just a bit, you will see he really doesn't need much in the way of VIP perquisites.

As a group, the members of this forum tend to be an opinionated and fairly outspoken group - else we wouldn't spend so much time opining and typing I am certainly guiltier than many (though not all - jeez Royal 8300+ posts)! His challenge to us was to not only share opinions, but to act as well. That is a lot harder.

I admit it. I spent a professional lifetime "doing", and my participation in most things is now primarily through my checkbook. But I have had the opportunity to talk to Paul about several issues that bothered me. One was the drift toward elitism that seemed to plague the organization for a decade or more. The journal had become symptomatic with elitist articles on thousand dollar bottles of cognac and custom jewelry that cost more than the annual income of most members of our community. I do not believe that I had any real personal impact - we were busy trying to hit the occasional pigeon at the time - but I am sure I was one of many member voices who had offered similar observations. I do know that the journal has become more mainstream, and I believe, (certainly hope) some of the perceived snobbery is abating.

So if you feel strongly about what needs to be fixed and have constructive ideas how to do it, take him up on his offer. Go to the national meeting or attend a local chapter meeting. Write a well considered letter or email outlining your perceived issues and possible solutions. Just bitching doesn't help very much; put down ideas how to actually fix things. @Wheels has articulated one above that I would certainly strongly support. SCI should indeed go to school on many lessons learned by the NRA over the last few decades - positive and negative. But the reality is that engaging in public debate is new for the organization. Paul can't and probably shouldn't be the one trying to do it. A Charleton Heston can be tough to find - but there is no reason we can't have someone like a Dana Loesch. I urge Wheels to get that recommendation formally to Paul and anyone else in the organization's leadership. I am going to do so.

Finally, I am a life member of DSC and SCI, and have been so in SCI for almost two decades. I know of no previous leader who has tried to take such an active roll in outreach as had Paul, or one who has tried as hard to shift the emphasis of effort of the organization. I suspect many of us could do more to actually help in that good work. I hope all of us will consider it.

 

[Wheels]

SCI is not really a charitable donation. It is an organization of like minded individuals who pool their resources to protect a specific set of issues. That is much more akin to a Political Action Committee than a charity. .

This^^^

(though not all - jeez Royal 8300+ posts)!.

Some of us are certainly filled with more hot air than others.

. But I have had the opportunity to talk to Paul about several issues that bothered me. One was the drift toward elitism that seemed to plague the organization for a decade or more. The journal had become symptomatic with elitist articles on thousand dollar bottles of cognac and custom jewelry that cost more than the annual income of most members of our community. .

For years I loved to get my Safari Club Magazine in the mail. This was the only place I could find to quench an Africa bug. When it became a wine and jewelry magazine, I let my membership lapse. This was after multiple emails and phone calls to Tuscon went unanswered and not returned. You guys here on AH do more and fulfill that Africa hunting report itch now!

So if you feel strongly about what needs to be fixed and have constructive ideas how to do it, take him up on his offer. Go to the national meeting or attend a local chapter meeting. Write a well considered letter or email outlining your perceived issues and possible solutions. Just bitching doesn't help very much; put down ideas how to actually fix things. @Wheels has articulated one above that I would certainly strongly support. SCI should indeed go to school on many lessons learned by the NRA over the last few decades - positive and negative. But the reality is that engaging in public debate is new for the organization. Paul can't and probably shouldn't be the one trying to do it. A Charleton Heston can be tough to find - but there is no reason we can't have someone like a Dana Loesch. I urge Wheels to get that recommendation formally to Paul and anyone else in the organization's leadership. I am going to do so..

Good job of encouragement. I just emailed Paul this suggestion.

 

[Royal27]

As a group, the members of this forum tend to be an opinionated and fairly outspoken group - else we wouldn't spend so much time opining and typing I am certainly guiltier than many (though not all - jeez Royal 8300+ posts

Some of us are certainly filled with more hot air than others.

 

[Paul Babaz]

@Paul Babaz Thank you for coming back on AH and addressing a few items. Your time is appreciated.

One of the biggest problems hunters have to deal with, is there is no "Face" of hunting. There is no person like Charleton Heston was for the NRA, or like Dana Loesch is now. Let's take Cecil the lion as an example. In my opinion, SCI made a terrible response when Cecil went pandemic. First, SCI backed away from Dr. Palmer, revoked his membership and didn't want to respond to any media, just hoping things would die down and go away. As a hunter, I was completely disgusted with SCI for their response. John Jackson was about the only hunter who would go on the media and tell the real story of Cecil. I have a tremendous amount of respect for Jackson. He did a good job, but while he knows the facts, he is not a professional speaker.

SCI needs a spokesman hunter who is willing to be the face of hunting for the next 20 years. This person needs to be handsome/pretty, intelligent, well spoken and have the ability to think on their feet. This person needs to be in D.C. or NYC. They need to bombard the media with conservation related news releases every couple of weeks. They need to be willing to step in front of any microphone at any moment to address any issue regarding hunting. If faced with a new Cecil, they need to know the players all over the world, or know people in the industry, so with a couple of phone calls, they can figure out the truth's and the lies. Cecil was all about lies, and SCI allowed the lies to be perpetrated instead of being the voice of conservation, common sense, reason and the TRUTH. Within 3-4 days, most of us on AH and AR knew the lies. Some of us had been in contact with outfitters in Zimbabwe. We could counter the six to eight lies that were told and repeated constantly by the main stream media. SCI didn't try to respond to any of these as I recall.

There are news organizations and reporters who would contact an SCI spokesman in a situation like Cecil since they would know who he is. That spokesman could then help completely change the narrative with reasonable people and with people looking to know the truth.

Thanks again for being willing to come on AH and listen to our suggestions, and complaints.

Thanks for the response and thank you for contacting me directly, in hindsight I should have replied here instead. I agree the industry needs a cadre's of spokesmen as its not a one size fits all. Sometimes you need a pretty face and sometimes you need a PHD Wildlife Biologist. SCI get's dozens of media requests a on various issues, but we don't entertain them all as some are just not going to present our message. I have done interviews on CNN, ABC, NBC, local news and radio, national radio, etc. Its never a fun process and it's typically edited to fit there narrative. A lot of folks mention Fox news. We've spoke to Fox, but they really haven't wanted to engage. I believe they feel like they would be preaching to the choir. I wish we had we could find another person like Mr. Heston, but they are few and far between as Mr. Heston was true in his beliefs and he was there for the mission, not for ego or anything else. He was there because he believed.

Sorry to be brief, but I wanted to reply to you as soon as I could, Paul

 

[Paul Babaz]

Sorry I came back to this thread after @Paul Babaz had to get on with his life and important work. On another of our discussions, I strongly supported him for the NRA Board - hope that is successful because it will be a small step in uniting "shooters" and hunters.

I think the percentage of overhead is a spurious argument. SCI is not the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, or, thank God, the Clinton Foundation. I think @Royal27 said it well, but to reiterate, SCI is not really a charitable donation. It is an organization of like minded individuals who pool their resources to protect a specific set of issues. That is much more akin to a Political Action Committee than a charity. One should anticipate that the majority of contributions would go to expertise in fighting the good fight than to say blue duffel bags. I am frankly pleasantly surprised that they are able to devote as much of their resources as they do to something other than lawyers and lobbyists. And if you will dig into Paul's professional background and day job just a bit, you will see he really doesn't need much in the way of VIP perquisites.

As a group, the members of this forum tend to be an opinionated and fairly outspoken group - else we wouldn't spend so much time opining and typing I am certainly guiltier than many (though not all - jeez Royal 8300+ posts)! His challenge to us was to not only share opinions, but to act as well. That is a lot harder.

I admit it. I spent a professional lifetime "doing", and my participation in most things is now primarily through my checkbook. But I have had the opportunity to talk to Paul about several issues that bothered me. One was the drift toward elitism that seemed to plague the organization for a decade or more. The journal had become symptomatic with elitist articles on thousand dollar bottles of cognac and custom jewelry that cost more than the annual income of most members of our community. I do not believe that I had any real personal impact - we were busy trying to hit the occasional pigeon at the time - but I am sure I was one of many member voices who had offered similar observations. I do know that the journal has become more mainstream, and I believe, (certainly hope) some of the perceived snobbery is abating.

So if you feel strongly about what needs to be fixed and have constructive ideas how to do it, take him up on his offer. Go to the national meeting or attend a local chapter meeting. Write a well considered letter or email outlining your perceived issues and possible solutions. Just bitching doesn't help very much; put down ideas how to actually fix things. @Wheels has articulated one above that I would certainly strongly support. SCI should indeed go to school on many lessons learned by the NRA over the last few decades - positive and negative. But the reality is that engaging in public debate is new for the organization. Paul can't and probably shouldn't be the one trying to do it. A Charleton Heston can be tough to find - but there is no reason we can't have someone like a Dana Loesch. I urge Wheels to get that recommendation formally to Paul and anyone else in the organization's leadership. I am going to do so.

Finally, I am a life member of DSC and SCI, and have been so in SCI for almost two decades. I know of no previous leader who has tried to take such an active roll in outreach as had Paul, or one who has tried as hard to shift the emphasis of effort of the organization. I suspect many of us could do more to actually help in that good work. I hope all of us will consider it.

Thank you Sir, I really appreciate the comment and your support. I would love to have Dana on board, but if folks are upset about the $ we spend now, better buckle up as she would not be cheap! You are right it's tough to take action because it takes, effort, time, and $ and these are not always available in the quantities we'd like but everyone can take some sort of action.

We got a lot of criticism on the magazine's venture in some of the lifestyle stuff, but suffice to say the person who lead that effort is gone! This being said, other things are experimented with and they fail or succeed but we have to try new things.

I have to mention the NRA Re-Election as I do appreciate your vote, but I have to say that it's not just this forum or the other forum where I get my butt handed to me. Some of you may or may not know that I am a gun guy, it really is a problem. I have been hunting and shooting my entire life and used to shoot a lot more aside from hunting when I had time and I will have more time again soon, but I have shot in competitions, various disciplines for years. I said I shot in competition, I didn't say I shot competitively! At any rate, I have shot handgun, rifle, shotgun, etc. you name it I shot it. So I see a gun forum post a flyer on my running for reelection to the NRA board, and the comments were comical! Comments to that fact that NRA is 2nd amendment rights group, not hunting group and needs people who shoot, not hunt! I was stunned, and there was a comment that I never mentioned AR's (AR-15) in my bio which is limited to very few words to begin with. Are you kidding? I can't count the number of AR's I have in various configurations, but it made me realize that each group has the same elements. Folks have an opinion about a group or an individual and are quick to say something when they have zero fact to base it on. Any one who knows me would have laughed at these comments, and I would laugh too, if it wasn't so sad! This divisiveness is the sort of things that the antis love! We fight among ourselves a lot of times for no reason. Its not productive, because we may not agree on everything with everyone in the hunting and shooting world, but I'd bet we agree on 95%. SOOO, why don't we set aside the 5% and work together on the 95%???

Good Hunting and Shooting! Paul

 

[Paul Babaz]

Sorrry @Red Leg I had to change my avatar! I would post my one pager, but I have no idea how to post a .pdf here! You all were spared my unabashed campaigning! haha

 

[Royal27]

Sorrry @Red Leg I had to change my avatar! I would post my one pager, but I have no idea how to post a .pdf here! You all were spared my unabashed campaigning! haha

@Paul Babaz ,

Posting a PDF is easy here. Start your reply as normal, then click upload a file (right next to "Post Reply"), add your file as you would to any email, and then just post your reply as normal.

If you're on your computer you can even just drag and drop into the message itself, or the above method will still work.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

@D.M.V Thank your for adding your comment as I believe this is the biggest challenge we all face. Your age demographic is exactly the group we need to embrace as you all are starting families, and it's your generation and your kid's generation that will be the protectors of our freedoms.

Paul,

I was glad to read that reply regarding the age demographic. In regards to at least the convention, the pinnacle event of the year for SCI, I don't see it as being inviting to the 20-40 somethings. I did not make it to Reno this year but from what I was told and have read online was that the attendance at this years show, and I would say last year too, was that the demographic was older as well as down in total.

BUT......as some said, these were "qualified" buyers who were there in fact to buy. This offered as some sort of solace to the down attendance. Whatever solace that offers, it's short lived and short sighted. Today's tire kickers, the families with kids and young hunters, are tomorrow's buyers.

My own experience.....After having been told how Africa could be affordable, I went to a smaller local show here in the Phoenix area. This was 2008 and I was 40 at the time. I still had young kids, but I'd got to the point where a modest RSA PG hunt was within reach. For scheduling challenges, the hunt didn't take place until 2010.

I was so taken with Africa I went to my first SCI convention in 2011, in Reno. I was amazed at the show, overwhelmed by it to say the least. What I thought I could get done in two days, I found myself wishing I had allotted another day for. But here are some other thoughts about that first show for me:

1. I will never forget walking out of the Reno airport to taxi row and seeing those advertisements that taxis have strapped to the roofs of their car. The ads were for the cat houses out in Carson City and how the taxis could get you there.

2. Reno as a whole is just somewhere I don't have any aspiration to visit again. A dirty hole of a town. If it weren't for the convention, I would never likely come back. And if so, only to get to Lake Tahoe.

3. You must be a member to attend the convention and you must pay big to get into the convention. Wow was that a sticker shock for me!

4. Hey, Reno is kind of cold. Perhaps not North Dakota cold, but chilly.


I obviously can only speak for myself, but I think it's fair to say between Reno as a location and the price of admission, that many people are being turned off from attending the convention.

Feedback from outfitters complaining about dates or location or whatever it may be is largely irrelevant in my opinion. None of those minor complaints will mean anything if at the end of the day the outfitters are booking hunts and thus making money and will continue to exhibit at the convention. Conversely none of those complaints will mean anything either if they're not selling hunts and not making money or perhaps even losing money. In order to sell hunts at the convention, you must have buyers attend. But to repeat myself, today's tire kickers are tomorrow's buyers.

If attendance continues to falter and the older demographic does not have a pipeline of younger people coming in behind them, SCI has a problem. Outfitters have to make a decision as to how to spend their marketing dollars. If there are alternatives to SCI that make better business sense for them, well that's what they'll do. And I don't think you can blame them.

I hope you don't take my post as just a rant of a bashing of SCI. SCI has and does much for hunters and conservation, I do not doubt this. As such I want to see SCI remain and be a strong influence. But I do have my concerns regarding the convention and its future, and this is what motivates my post.

Thanks for your efforts!

 

[BRICKBURN]

Sorrry @Red Leg I had to change my avatar! I would post my one pager, but I have no idea how to post a .pdf here! You all were spared my unabashed campaigning! haha

Start a new thread and start campaigning.

"Vote Paul Babaz"

 

[JGRaider]

@JGRaider will be very confused that you're not raking in the millions from your position at SCI Paul?!

What's confusing is why Paul won't post up the salaries/overhead costs of SCI employees given SCI solicits money from the public. Seems like pertinent info. SCI has over 130 employees, DSC has what, 10?

 

[BRICKBURN]

Is there some legal requirement to disclose this kind of information?
If not, I can't see why anyone would disclose confidential personal information.

 

[Royal27]

What's confusing is why Paul won't post up the salaries/overhead costs of SCI employees given SCI solicits money from the public. Seems like pertinent info. SCI has over 130 employees, DSC has what, 10?

Sounds like that will be a subject of your speech to the board while you're in DC. Pretty cool that you've been invited . Can't wait to hear how it goes.

And by the way, SCI doesn't get any public money I don't believe. All of the donations are from private citizens.

 

[wesheltonj]

Is there some legal requirement to disclose this kind of information?
If not, I can't see why anyone would disclose confidential personal information.

Yes there is a legal requirement to disclose this info on the 990. Officers and Directors salaries have to listed. The rest is just listed as wages.

 

[Royal27]

Yes there is a legal requirement to disclose this info on the 990. Officers and Directors salaries have to listed. The rest is just listed as wages.

So no, there is no legal requirement to disclose publicly to the level that @JGRaider would like.

I'd bet they just might let him look at the books while he is in DC for the meeting though .

 

[BRICKBURN]

Yes there is a legal requirement to disclose this info on the 990. Officers and Directors salaries have to listed. The rest is just listed as wages.

If I had half a clue what a 990 was it might be clearer to me. I assume some tax reporting form.
I assume members can let the leadership what they want done.

 

[jeff]

I work for the government and I'm not aware that my wages are public knowledge.

 

[Royal27]

If I had half a clue what a 990 was it might be clearer to me. I assume some tax reporting form.
I assume members can let the leadership what they want done.

Correct. It's an IRS tax form.

I will send you the latest SCI and DSC forms that are available in the morning. I have them both on my laptop. The information is public.

 

[Royal27]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_990

 

[wesheltonj]

A couple of quick comparisons for 2016:

DSC: Executive compensation $218,720, 4.6%, non-executive $643,252, 13.5%, Total Revenue $5,759,743
SCI: Executive compensation $795,264, 5.7%, non-executive $3,793,656, 27.2%, Total Revenue $14,720,114
RMEF: Executive compensation $686,341, 1.7%, non-executive $7,129,364, 17.4%, Total Revenue $43,495,661
Mule Deer: Executive compensation $265,00, 2.2$, non-executive $959,026, 8.0%, Total Revenue $10,937,778
Whitetails: Executive compensation $588,952, 7.6%, non-executive $2,226,634, 29.3%, Total Revenue $8,437,065
Ducks: Executive Compensation $3,294,452, 1.9%, non-executive $39,970,168, 22.6%, Total Revenue $202,398,122.