DSC Questions Answered

[Dave Fulson]

@Dave Fulson, thank you for the information and post. Your knowledge, work, and productions are appreciated.

You and all fellow conservationists are making a difference and impact for sustainable-use wildlife conservation.

Happy hunting to all, TheGrayRider a/k/a Tom.

Thank you Tom. All the best.
Dave

 

[AimSmall]

The DSC immediate past president forms a nomination committee when it’s time for elections..

That nomination committee is who brings forth the nominees… so in many ways the past president has a ton of influence over what the next board looks like since it’s his/her team that controls who the options are to be voted on..

The general membership isn’t involved in nominations…

The nomination process at DSC is different than that.

If you are a voting member with a good email address active with DSC, you would have received an email titled "Call for Director Nominations" on about the 15th of November, 2024.

Following the instructions would give you the opportunity to propose members for nomination. That process requires the participation of the person who you are putting forward.

The nominating committee, (not the Admin committee) as defined in the bylaws, is tasked with proposing a minimum of 5 nominees - for the replacement of 3 directors whose terms are expiring.

Sounds like members do have influence on who is on the ballot, as they have for years.

 

[mdwest]

The nomination process at DSC is different than that.

If you are a voting member with a good email address active with DSC, you would have received an email titled "Call for Director Nominations" on about the 15th of November, 2024.

Following the instructions would give you the opportunity to propose members for nomination. That process requires the participation of the person who you are putting forward.

The nominating committee, (not the Admin committee) as defined in the bylaws, is tasked with proposing a minimum of 5 nominees - for the replacement of 3 directors whose terms are expiring.

Sounds like members do have influence on who is on the ballot, as they have for years.

Actually you and I just said the same thing... you merely added one more facet..

Sure, you can absolutely nominate someone as a member in good standing..

but, by your own statement, that is no guarantee that nominee makes it to the ballot..

For the sake of argument 50 members send in nominations..

of those 50 nominations, there are 15 unique names recommended and all 15 of those people participate.. they submit their resumes, sign the paperwork, and do everything required of them..

why is it we wouldnt see 15 names on the ballot?

and.. who ultimately decides which of those names we do see? and based on what specific criteria?



Per that Nov 15 email you cite, there are 2 key points..

1) In the "submission procedures" section, it is clear.. a candidate submitted is merely a "potential nominee" submission and participation DOES NOT equal nomination.

and

2) per the "Nominating Committee Process" section of that same email "The Committee will compile nominations from voting members and the DSC board during the period leading up to December 31. In January, the Committee will vet candidates’ qualifications for director positions and complete its work before the February board meeting to begin the election processes leading up to the annual meeting. The Committee will select five nominees to be placed on the ballot."

lets be clear here.. the DSC BOARD is making nominations in addition to the membership.. and the Committee is selecting from those nominations.. who do you think historically has been selected? more Board nominees? or more "member" nominees? and.. based on what @Dave Fulson has said about his experience with the current board, do we really believe the candidates we saw this year came from sources outside of the board and/or current leadership? anyone care to guess what the ratio might have been?

So.. the Committee ultimately decides who we see.. based on who THEY determine are the 5 people they want us to see.. based on their opinion of who is best suited to serve.

So.. sounds like members influence isn't nearly as great as you assert to me..

And that my original statement stands.. the past president and the committee have significant influence..

 

[Houston Bill]

Agree on the lack of awareness in Atlanta. I went and none of my friends who live in Atlanta knew it was there. When in Dallas they had the leading sports radio station in the metroplex broadcast from the show and promote it. In Atlanta there was hardly any signage at the convention center I had a hell of a time finding the exhibit hall the first day.

That said as an attendee I selfishly think it was great. No one was there I got plenty of opportunity to talk to tons of exhibitors without interruption. Not a sustainable model for the show or exhibitors but my experience was great.

I agree. From a selfish point of view I had a great DSC Atlanta convention because of exactly what you said, no one was there, the traffic at the booths was very light and I was able to speak with a lot of people without interruption. But as you correctly pointed out this is not sustainable for the outfitters and merchandise vendors. I know one African outfitter that routinely nearly fills up his calendar at the DSC show, they booked ZERO hunts in Atlanta. That has never happened to them, even in their first few years at the DSC convention when they had not yet built up a big client base.

 

[jpr9954]

It’s not quite that simple…

The DSC immediate past president forms a nomination committee when it’s time for elections..

That nomination committee is who brings forth the nominees… so in many ways the past president has a ton of influence over what the next board looks like since it’s his/her team that controls who the options are to be voted on..

The general membership isn’t involved in nominations…

You can write in candidates once it’s time to vote… but you’d have to have a consensus among a significant number of members (not just a few hundred) to all write in the same candidate, and have that candidate obtain more votes than the other candidates…

And a voting block of 2 is ineffective… IIRC the board is 9 people…

Without 5 votes, you’ve got no traction..

Is there a provision for nominations by petition?

As antiquated as the NRA petition process is, we were successful in adding 12 candidates to the 2025 Board election plus I was double nominated (Nom Comm plus petition). Last year we got four reformers nominated and all four were elected.

 

[mdwest]

Is there a provision for nominations by petition?

As antiquated as the NRA petition process is, we were successful in adding 12 candidates to the 2025 Board election plus I was double nominated (Nom Comm plus petition). Last year we got four reformers nominated and all four were elected.

Not that I am aware of… but it’s possible I suppose… in none of the vote related emails or discussions I’ve ever had with DSC leadership has it ever come up or been advised… but a provision like that might be embedded in the by-laws or other corporate documents somewhere…

 

[jpr9954]

Not that I am aware of… but it’s possible I suppose… in none of the vote related emails or discussions I’ve ever had with DSC leadership has it ever come up or been advised… but a provision like that might be embedded in the by-laws or other corporate documents somewhere…

Having just read the bylaws, I find there is no provision for getting a candidate on the ballot by petition of the members. It only says that voting members can submit names to the Nominating Committee.

Given my past experience with gathering petition signatures with the NRA, it is not easy but it is doable. This year was more of an exception because there was significant organization behind the effort. With regard to DSC, I think it would harder as there is a much smaller membership and finding voting members is not as easy as just going to a gun show or visiting a gun club.

Reading the bylaws, it would be possible to insert a petition process into the bylaws but it would take a 2/3rds vote of those present at the Annual Meeting and the notice of the amendment would have to be contained in the meeting notice.

 

[mdwest]

Reading the bylaws, it would be possible to insert a petition process into the bylaws but it would take a 2/3rds vote of those present at the Annual Meeting and the notice of the amendment would have to be contained in the meeting notice.

That would be doable, but would be a very high and difficult hurdle to get over. You’d have to amass a fairly significant number of people to show up at the annual meeting (no time for that this year) and have them all firmly onboard with the plan.

It’s been a while since I’ve been to an annual meeting, but my experience in the past is that it’s largely been attended by the board, officers, and a handful of heavily involved locals from the Dallas metro area… there’s not a lot of people that travel from out of town outside of officers and board members that attend.. but those that are there are generally the most involved in the club and whatever it’s current path is…

So you’d have to convince more people (by a full third) than that to either come in from Dallas (that likely aren’t very active in chapter or national activities or they’d already be there) or to travel from out of town to attend…

It could be done.. but it’s a difficult path.. and not one that would be available until next year..

Assume the bylaws change is made.. it would then be the following year (2027) before the first petition candidates make their way onto the ballot..

And I’d guess we’re probably looking at 2029 or 2030 before enough of them get elected to start pushing the organization back in the right direction..

4-5 years really isn’t a long time in the scope of things if that’s what it takes to salvage the organization…

The question would be, by 2030 what’s left to salvage?

TTHA will have been firmly planted at Kay Bailey for 5 years… SCI has already announced that they have secured the venue until 2030… and they have stated that they are increasing their marketing substantially starting this year..

DSC has got to figure out how to have a successful show if it intends on participating in conservation (to whatever degree they intend to, or not).. their business model is reliant on show revenue.. it’s where the overwhelming majority of the organizations money comes from…

If participants continue to refuse to attend, vendors will drop out… it’s simple math… no participants = no sales.. so no attendance.. if vendors drop out, auction donations (where millions of dollars come from) disappear… and if auction donations disappear, we’re left with a shell of an organization..

DSC will continue to exist no matter what.. it doesn’t take a whole lot of funding to keep a “club” together… but if it falls to even just 50% of what it was a couple of years ago (which would still be something significant), it definitely won’t be the same animal that it was in yesteryear..

And looking at DSCs financials, they can’t afford another ATL like the 2025 show… if that happens again, we’re going to very likely start seeing a major decline immediately after…

 

[Surgeon1]

After seeing and reading the notes here I'm of the same opinion I was when I left Atlanta in January!
I won't be attending DSC conventions anytime in the future! SCI will be on my Calander as will
TTHA Dalas meeting and Western States Sportsman's show. Many of the exhibitors who have long supported DSC have all stated "we are done and will spend our time and money elsewhere"
DSC And DSCF kept many antipoaching programs and African operators running during Covid, but
those were different organizations and leadership than what we have been saddled with now!

 

[sureshot375]

That would be doable, but would be a very high and difficult hurdle to get over. You’d have to amass a fairly significant number of people to show up at the annual meeting (no time for that this year) and have them all firmly onboard with the plan.

It’s been a while since I’ve been to an annual meeting, but my experience in the past is that it’s largely been attended by the board, officers, and a handful of heavily involved locals from the Dallas metro area… there’s not a lot of people that travel from out of town outside of officers and board members that attend.. but those that are there are generally the most involved in the club and whatever it’s current path is…

So you’d have to convince more people (by a full third) than that to either come in from Dallas (that likely aren’t very active in chapter or national activities or they’d already be there) or to travel from out of town to attend…

It could be done.. but it’s a difficult path.. and not one that would be available until next year..

Assume the bylaws change is made.. it would then be the following year (2027) before the first petition candidates make their way onto the ballot..

And I’d guess we’re probably looking at 2029 or 2030 before enough of them get elected to start pushing the organization back in the right direction..

4-5 years really isn’t a long time in the scope of things if that’s what it takes to salvage the organization…

The question would be, by 2030 what’s left to salvage?

TTHA will have been firmly planted at Kay Bailey for 5 years… SCI has already announced that they have secured the venue until 2030… and they have stated that they are increasing their marketing substantially starting this year..

DSC has got to figure out how to have a successful show if it intends on participating in conservation (to whatever degree they intend to, or not).. their business model is reliant on show revenue.. it’s where the overwhelming majority of the organizations money comes from…

If participants continue to refuse to attend, vendors will drop out… it’s simple math… no participants = no sales.. so no attendance.. if vendors drop out, auction donations (where millions of dollars come from) disappear… and if auction donations disappear, we’re left with a shell of an organization..

DSC will continue to exist no matter what.. it doesn’t take a whole lot of funding to keep a “club” together… but if it falls to even just 50% of what it was a couple of years ago (which would still be something significant), it definitely won’t be the same animal that it was in yesteryear..

And looking at DSCs financials, they can’t afford another ATL like the 2025 show… if that happens again, we’re going to very likely start seeing a major decline immediately after…

Atlanta was going to be a big new challenge for DSC, but I think there was some potential if done properly.

The information provided in this thread shows a much more fundamental and perhaps insurmountable problem.

1. They shot themselves in foot by firing SCP when they needed them most. If they are going to let vendettas and pissing matches rule their operations, things will get a lot worse before it gets better.

2. The switch from a conservation and lobbying minded focus to a “hunting club” to give attaboys to rich trophy collectors will be the end of DSC as we know it once that message gets out. I believe this would absolutely gut their revenue.

 

[mdwest]

Atlanta was going to be a big new challenge for DSC, but I think there was some potential…

I agree…

There was certainly going to be some fall out no matter what decision was made… even if the show just moved down the road to San Antonio, someone wouldn’t like the idea, and a certain number of North Texans that have enjoyed the convenience of the show being in their back yard and not having to travel, take time off, etc likely wouldn’t have made the trip… so DSC should have known there was going to be a lot of work required to pull off a move/change of this magnitude… unfortunately they didn’t make the right moves, and not only did the show fail, but they’ve really pissed off a lot of people along the way..

While I suspect in the short term moving to anywhere would have had a negative impact, Atlanta honestly could have been a brilliant long term strategic move had the cards been played correctly…

For the last decade or so DSC has but a lot of focus toward trying to become a true national/international organization.. there’s been a lot of effort put into the chapter system, and trying to grow membership outside the state of Texas…

To @Dave Fulson ‘s point earlier in this thread, there are 3.1m hunting licenses sold in the states surrounding the ATL venue.. that could have (should have!) been a huge focus and there should have been a ton of marketing and sales efforts thrown at that population…

Even if the show itself took a hit, had DSC just convinced 2000 of those 3.1M hunters to become members.. and only 1% of those new members became really active in their local chapters, what an incredible difference that could have made in the future of the organization…

 

[wesheltonj]

I am sure some North Texans and Okies might not have made the trip down to San Antonio. But certainly a lot more would have made San Antonio then Atlanta. I saw that ad that SCP made showing the move and the 3.1 million hunters. The big question is how many of those would make an overseas hunting trip. Most of those are White-tail hunters and some Quail hunters, how do you get them to add overseas hunting. Sell them on a measuring contest? SCI has the market cornered, with slam and circles, etc. Running around with a sash and cords at DSC as to how big a stack of animals killed at some rubber chicken dinner does nothing for me and I would guess a large majority of hunters too.

 

[mdwest]

Rest assured I would have made the trip… I love San Antonio… great food, the river walk is a neat destination for out of towners, the national shooting complex is a great visit if you’re into shotgun sports, etc..

But it wasn’t selected…

My understanding is DSC actually did a very thorough search (more than 30 cities I think?) and almost every one of them got ruled out because either the space wasn’t available at the time needed/desired, or the space didn’t meet DSCs requirements, etc… that it came down to 2 actual options… Detroit or Atlanta…

If that’s true, I can understand the Atlanta decision..

But, that said, the question would be what were the DSC requirements? And why? And is there any possibility those requirements could have flexed and better results could have been obtained (for example, would moving the show to February at a more favorable location be a better choice than sticking to January dates at a less favorable location?)..

I don’t believe we’ll ever know.. because DSC has made a conscious decision not to engage on how we got to where we currently are..

Clearly a whole lot of mistakes and missteps beyond ATL have happened (mass board member resignations, president resignation, ceo resignation, etc all resulting from who know what assortment of issues)..

But the show moving and the lack of marketing and communication with membership related to the move is certainly the action with the most immediate visible impact…

 

[Doug3006]

I agree…

There was certainly going to be some fall out no matter what decision was made… even if the show just moved down the road to San Antonio, someone wouldn’t like the idea, and a certain number of North Texans that have enjoyed the convenience of the show being in their back yard and not having to travel, take time off, etc likely wouldn’t have made the trip… so DSC should have known there was going to be a lot of work required to pull off a move/change of this magnitude… unfortunately they didn’t make the right moves, and not only did the show fail, but they’ve really pissed off a lot of people along the way..

While I suspect in the short term moving to anywhere would have had a negative impact, Atlanta honestly could have been a brilliant long term strategic move had the cards been played correctly…

For the last decade or so DSC has but a lot of focus toward trying to become a true national/international organization.. there’s been a lot of effort put into the chapter system, and trying to grow membership outside the state of Texas…

To @Dave Fulson ‘s point earlier in this thread, there are 3.1m hunting licenses sold in the states surrounding the ATL venue.. that could have (should have!) been a huge focus and there should have been a ton of marketing and sales efforts thrown at that population…

Even if the show itself took a hit, had DSC just convinced 2000 of those 3.1M hunters to become members.. and only 1% of those new members became really active in their local chapters, what an incredible difference that could have made in the future of the organization…

I don’t think the distance to San Antonio, or Atlanta for that matter, would be the main problem for NE Texans. I think ATLANTA was the deterrent. I know Texans who drive 100 miles for a piece of pie and coffee!

 

[mdwest]

I don’t think the distance to San Antonio, or Atlanta for that matter, would be the main problem for NE Texans. I think ATLANTA was the deterrent. I know Texans who drive 100 miles for a piece of pie and coffee!

Ill certainly make the 3.5 hour drive from my house to Austin for BBQ

 

[Greg Simons]

As a board member of DSC and someone who has signed an NDA as part of my board responsibility, I will steer clear of getting into the weeds that relate to certain aspects of this string commentary. However, it pains me to see and mischaracterizations that scattered through portions of this dialog.

One thing that I am compelled to address is the “husband and wife team” that is unfairly and unjustly being attacked. During the last 30+ years I have spent an immense amount of time working as a volunteer for multiple conservation organizations. During that period, I have been blessed to worked alongside of hundreds of selfless volunteers who contribute to the mission of the orgs they support, including a handful that rise above the rest. But there is one person, as well as his wife, who stand out more than any I’ve been involved with and that’s the person who is being attacked through some commentary on this string. During the 4 years I’ve been on the DSC board, they have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars out of their own pocket supporting DSC/DSCF and DSC chapters. They have procured millions (MILLIONS) of dollars’ worth of donations that have benefitted DSC and DSC Foundation. Over this 4 year period the time-investment they have made for DSC/DSCF and the DSC chapters would be equivalent to 1.5 FTE’s for DSC/DSCF. Undoubtedly, beyond reproach, they have positively moved the needle for this organization more than any other single volunteer in recent years….by a large margin. The volunteers of many of the conservation organizations across the globe are invaluable to mission deployment of those organizations, benefitting us all. This “husband and wife team” are conservation champions in the highest of standards. And for them it’s all about giving and not taking, and they have given like no other I’ve ever seen….time, money, and resources.

Our collective hunting community needs ALL of our conservation groups to succeed. The wild things and wild places of the world NEED ALL of our conservation groups to succeed. These organizations serve as the most powerful voice for wildlife and its habitat. We should root for the success of each of these orgs and we should celebrate the volunteers who make sacrifices to ensure that the important missions of these orgs are deployed at their highest capacities.

Thank you for reading this, and God-willing, together, we can secure an everlasting existence for all wildlife and hunters across the world. I pray for the wild success of all pro sustainable-use conservation organizations internationally. Onward and upwards.

 

[mdwest]

As a board member of DSC and someone who has signed an NDA as part of my board responsibility, I will steer clear of getting into the weeds that relate to certain aspects of this string commentary. However, it pains me to see and mischaracterizations that scattered through portions of this dialog.

One thing that I am compelled to address is the “husband and wife team” that is unfairly and unjustly being attacked. During the last 30+ years I have spent an immense amount of time working as a volunteer for multiple conservation organizations. During that period, I have been blessed to worked alongside of hundreds of selfless volunteers who contribute to the mission of the orgs they support, including a handful that rise above the rest. But there is one person, as well as his wife, who stand out more than any I’ve been involved with and that’s the person who is being attacked through some commentary on this string. During the 4 years I’ve been on the DSC board, they have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars out of their own pocket supporting DSC/DSCF and DSC chapters. They have procured millions (MILLIONS) of dollars’ worth of donations that have benefitted DSC and DSC Foundation. Over this 4 year period the time-investment they have made for DSC/DSCF and the DSC chapters would be equivalent to 1.5 FTE’s for DSC/DSCF. Undoubtedly, beyond reproach, they have positively moved the needle for this organization more than any other single volunteer in recent years….by a large margin. The volunteers of many of the conservation organizations across the globe are invaluable to mission deployment of those organizations, benefitting us all. This “husband and wife team” are conservation champions in the highest of standards. And for them it’s all about giving and not taking, and they have given like no other I’ve ever seen….time, money, and resources.

Our collective hunting community needs ALL of our conservation groups to succeed. The wild things and wild places of the world NEED ALL of our conservation groups to succeed. These organizations serve as the most powerful voice for wildlife and its habitat. We should root for the success of each of these orgs and we should celebrate the volunteers who make sacrifices to ensure that the important missions of these orgs are deployed at their highest capacities.

Thank you for reading this, and God-willing, together, we can secure an everlasting existence for all wildlife and hunters across the world. I pray for the wild success of all pro sustainable-use conservation organizations internationally. Onward and upwards.

A sincere THANK YOU Greg for responding to this thread. I hope you will hang around and participate in the community. I believe most everyone that has posted in this thread wants to see DSC succeed and has no ill will to the organization. Many are long serving life members.

What is desired by many (most) I believe is simply to understand whats going on in the organization and why. While completely understanding your NDA that's in place (I have NDAs in place with the boards I serve on as well.. I completely get it..).. Several of the unanswered questions that people are looking for answers to are embedded in this thread.. Others I am sure will be along shortly now that its understood that a currently serving member of the board has become present.

Again, a sincere thank you is extended (by me at least). Its not easy to walk into a difficult discussion, even one that's online.. I appreciate your willingness to do so..

 

[mdwest]

Undoubtedly, beyond reproach, they have positively moved the needle for this organization more than any other single volunteer in recent years….by a large margin. T

I apologize.. this was the one statement I wanted to address in my earlier post..

I think this single statement may well be at the core of many of the concerns and questions asked..

Whether or not the "husband and wife" team are good people or not really isnt the concern (for me at least).. Im sure that as you attest they have put in tons of hours, lots of work, and piles of personal money into the organization over the years.. they wouldn't be where they are in the organization without those efforts..

The question that many people are asking is where exactly is the organization trying to go?

Clearly there are some disputes about this (again, back to the concerns of multiple board members resigning, a president resigning, a CEO resigning, alleged statements made by an interim CEO, a current CEO that made a commitment that hasn't been upheld, etc..etc..)..

If they are indeed who is moving the organization more than any other person in recent years (you and @Dave Fulson appear to agree on this)... that may be a positive thing.. or indeed not be a positive thing at all in the eyes of members.. the answer to that resides in where is it they (and the rest of the board) are trying to go..