DSC Questions Answered

[sureshot375]

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.

Greg,
Thanks for dropping in on this thread. I agree that we need all of our conservation organizations to thrive. The failure of DSC would be an enormous loss to our community.

I also understand the position you are in regarding an NDA, but there is something very upsetting that I think must be answered for the sake of all DSC members. I hope you will pass this along to someone who is authorized to speak.

It has been alleged that the incoming president made the following statement:

“From now on, this board does not want to hear the term Conservation Through Hunting' on our branded TV shows, in your articles, on any messaging or social media posts. We ARE NOT A CONSERVATION FIRST ORGANIZATION. We do some conservation work, but we are going to get back to being exactly what this club was designed to be in the first place...A Hunting Club."

I would like official confirmation as to the following:

1: Was such a statement ever made?
2: When was the statement made?
3. Who made the statement, and were they authorized to speak on behalf of the Board?
4. Who were all the Board members at such time the statement was made?

If this allegation is true, then the members, vendors, donors, and sponsors have an absolute moral, ethical, and legal right to know.

I have been a vocal DSC supporter. I think I can safely speak for everyone on this forum when I say they are all tired of listening to me defend and support you all on the whole Atlanta situation.

If this is the position the Board has taken, then the Board needs to have the integrity to own it.

I hope you can get a response to this question. If I do not receive an answer, I will just keep asking louder and louder.

 

[mdwest]

It looks like Kay Bailey is doing the renovation in phases.. any given year there supposedly will be three halls available (the number that DSC uses), but which halls ate available will change depending on where they are with the renovation process…

TTHA only used two halls this year, but supposedly has three halls already reserved for next year..

 

[K-man]

Hello all
I was on a Zoom call earlier last week with several reps for DSC, including Mike the Chapter representative from DSC. I made the point several times that the lack of communication from DSC to its members is creating a vacuum that WILL be filled. Even with guesses and half-facts, as the internet is prone to do. I stressed to them that the communication DSC PROMISED to its members is markedly absent, and both promised to help that along. We'll see.
I serve on several boards, and one thing is common among all of them. When the board has made its decision, whether you voted for or against it, you support that decision or resign. Publicly and privately.
Change it during a meeting if you can, but the board must be unified.
Thank you @Greg Simons for becoming an AH member and your willingness to serve. Please continue posting as much information as available and relay to the rest of the board how little info is coming from DSC.

 

[K-man]

I question whether I should do this, but this is public knowledge
Conor Harrison
Director of Communication,
DSC. (469) 484-6777
Maybe someone can get a direct answer from the person responsible for communications.

 

[Philip Glass]

Kay Bailey Hutchison convention center will continue with the renovation unless I'm mistaken. They're not tearing the whole place down and rebuilding from scratch. It will be done in phases. They signed like a 5 year contract with TTHA and/or SCI to continue that show there I think it was, @Philip Glass can confirm that number.

I would guess that TTHA as well as any other convention that is normally held there will have to be somewhat flexible in the exact hall(s) they use until the project is completed.

If I understand correctly, the overall floor space at KBH will significantly expand due to this renovation.

It is a 5 year contract as far as I know. Now whether that includes this year or not I will have to find out. We were told at TTHA that it will be something like one hall at a time that will be unavailable annually. So the show floor will shift but the Convention center will be open for business during the whole remodel.

 

[Dave Fulson]

Greg,
Thanks for dropping in on this thread. I agree that we need all of our conservation organizations to thrive. The failure of DSC would be an enormous loss to our community.

I also understand the position you are in regarding an NDA, but there is something very upsetting that I think must be answered for the sake of all DSC members. I hope you will pass this along to someone who is authorized to speak.

It has been alleged that the incoming president made the following statement:

“From now on, this board does not want to hear the term Conservation Through Hunting' on our branded TV shows, in your articles, on any messaging or social media posts. We ARE NOT A CONSERVATION FIRST ORGANIZATION. We do some conservation work, but we are going to get back to being exactly what this club was designed to be in the first place...A Hunting Club."

I would like official confirmation as to the following:

1: Was such a statement ever made?
2: When was the statement made?
3. Who made the statement, and were they authorized to speak on behalf of the Board?
4. Who were all the Board members at such time the statement was made?

If this allegation is true, then the members, vendors, donors, and sponsors have an absolute moral, ethical, and legal right to know.

I have been a vocal DSC supporter. I think I can safely speak for everyone on this forum when I say they are all tired of listening to me defend and support you all on the whole Atlanta situation.

If this is the position the Board has taken, then the Board needs to have the integrity to own it.

I hope you can get a response to this question. If I do not receive an answer, I will just keep asking louder and louder.

Phil, Greg Simmons would be unable to answer that question as he was not present. I was! So here is the answer in the order your of questions .1) Was such a statement ever made? Yes! And it was made to myself, and witnessed by my two partners and an employ in my office in Dallas, Texas. 2) When was the statement made? The last week of June, 2024. 3) Who made the statement and were they authorized to speak for the board? The person who made the statement was President Elect Rick Warren, who also is President of the OHAA. Was he authorized to make such a statement? That I cannot say, but he stated that he was expressing the wishes of the board. The board members can be found on the DSC website Biggame.org. No single person has been such an outspoken cheerleader for the husband and wife team than Greg Simmons. In addition, his nomination to the board was sponsored and aggressively sought by such, for the single purpose of having an effective mouthpiece for each and every idea, move and vote his sponsor desired to be forwarded. This was necessary because the DSC board member, who also serves as the DSC Foundation President ( how's that for a conflict of interests!) is NEVER the person speaking out, IN PUBLIC, on any issue. His methods, and I endured them for two terms on the DSC Foundation board, are to keep his hands clean, but to politic endlessly, and effectively, for others to carry his desires and messages forward. It became a laughable theme in the DSC board room, especially amongst all who quit the board in disgust, to hear Simmons go on a tangent of some kind when it was obvious knew that he was carrying water for his sponsor. It was constantly a good joke shared after every DSC board meeting " Simmons was carrying Russell Stacy's agenda again." At one time Simmons and I were friends, so I was indeed surprised to hear that he was so fervently in favor of dissolving DSC'a 20 year engagement with my firm. But it was also clear to EVERYONE involved that is new opinion was no reflection of our work, but was instead in complete support of his sponsors deepest desire. To GET RID OF THE LARGEST OPPOSITION TO HIS TAKEOVER ATTEMPT, SCP, and Dave Fulson in particular.
I had been vocal, for well over a year, that I believed a cancer was growing in influence at DSC, and unlike the guy in question, I made that statement IN PERSON, TO HIS FACE before I began sounding a general alarm. RS is a master at politicking, of that there is no doubt, and if anyone wants to contact any of the other board members or officers, and they will speak frankly, you will find the same name attached to their reason for saying good riddance to DSC.
The fact is boys, Mr Simmons, despite what he is sure to say now, is being sent here to defend the reputation of Russell Stacy, by Russell Stacy who is, bye the way, one of Mr Simmons most noted hunting clients.

Most notable, there was an actual bet among several former DSC officers and board members who have become aware of this tread of "How long will it take Greg Simmons to post some rebuttal on Stacys behalf. I lost. I said Friday, two said Monday, so I owe you $ 5 bucks boys.

All the stuff about " WE need all the strong Conservation groups( sorry DSC, Hunti'n Clubs) we can get is something I agree with, because I'm a member of most of them. But it rings pretty hallow that the ones that are, in mine and so many other opinions destroying one of the greatest ones are the ones crying for us all to get along.

Greg has indeed been around for 30 plus years, but not at DSC. I have, and for over twenty there. I know the people, history and the good and bad. I am not disappointed to see what believe is basically an overnight downward trajectory of an Organization I worked tirelessly to advance, I AM INFURIATED! And I am no longer bound by a NDA to speak from a very educated position.
Get ready boys, more defenders will be sent soon.

Dave Fulson

 

[Rimbaud]

I was surprised to see this issue still floating around. This caught my eye and it's a red flag for governance: having board members sign non-disclosure agreements. Board member should help manage and guide an organization. Why would board members need to sign an NDA? What were they exposed to that was damaging, or deemed to deserve quasi-legal protections to keep quiet. The backstory on why and who requested NDAs of board members likely tells most everything about the culture of the place. You can have the best strategic plans, but a bad culture derails strategy every time.

 

[mdwest]

I was surprised to see this issue still floating around. This caught my eye and it's a red flag for governance: having board members sign non-disclosure agreements. Board member should help manage and guide an organization. Why would board members need to sign an NDA? What were they exposed to that was damaging, or deemed to deserve quasi-legal protections to keep quiet. The backstory on why and who requested NDAs of board members likely tells most everything about the culture of the place. You can have the best strategic plans, but a bad culture derails strategy every time.

NDA's are commonplace for boards and even senior executives (non board members) in both the non profit and for profit world..

The problem arises when boards and executives hide behind them..

As someone stated earlier, when you serve on a board or as a senior executive in an organization, its important to present a unified front once a decision is made. Even if you have a position of dissent, once the board collectively makes a decision, you either stand behind it, or you remain silent outside of the board, or you resign.

Whats clear is several members of the DSC board chose to take option 3 and leave. They clearly felt strongly enough about whatever was going on to remove themselves from the organization.

While individuals should honor their NDA. That doesn't mean a board or an organization should remain silent on major issues. The board has a fiduciary responsibility. They are actually bound by law to make decisions based on what they believe to be in the best interest of the organization, and not make decisions based on their own self interest.

Once a board realizes there is a problem with key stakeholders related to decisions it has made, it can (and most often should) determine what their public message is going to be and then deliver it. If they were indeed acting in a fiduciarily responsible manner, this should not be a problem at all.

This is where DSC (IMO) has failed.. and continues to fail..

Maybe the board has determined it wants to be a club first and a conservation organization second.. that is their prerogative, and a fiduciarily sound argument could be made to support that..

But if that is true, does anyone think that its not the boards responsibility to convey that message to the membership?

Maybe its all just a misunderstanding and the board wants to put equal focus on both... ok.. if that's true.. and the board knows there are people questioning their decisions and their dedication to conservation.. does anyone think that the board should avoid responding and/or answering those questions? or that the best response is instead just to do nothing and hope the problem goes away?

I would assume the resignations of numerous key personnel would have some details that shouldn't be disclosed in public.. but the overarching questions and concerns generated by so many resignations in a short period of time, and the follow on misinformation that came out because of the board not putting together a public message to address the issue(s) (like the rumor that circled related to Corey being fired as opposed to Corey resigning..).. shouldn't those be addressed?

If the board had a dispute so great that literally over half of it left the organization inside a very tight window of time.. the CEO left.. the President left.. etc.. isn't it common sense that the membership would want to know what that dispute was over and why the board made the decision it made?

 

[Rimbaud]

NDA's are commonplace for boards and even senior executives (non board members) in both the non profit and for profit world..

The problem arises when boards and executives hide behind them..

As someone stated earlier, when you serve on a board or as a senior executive in an organization, its important to present a unified front once a decision is made. Even if you have a position of dissent, once the board collectively makes a decision, you either stand behind it, or you remain silent outside of the board, or you resign.

Whats clear is several members of the DSC board chose to take option 3 and leave. They clearly felt strongly enough about whatever was going on to remove themselves from the organization.

While individuals should honor their NDA. That doesn't mean a board or an organization should remain silent on major issues. The board has a fiduciary responsibility. They are actually bound by law to make decisions based on what they believe to be in the best interest of the organization, and not make decisions based on their own self interest.

Once a board realizes there is a problem with key stakeholders related to decisions it has made, it can (and most often should) determine what their public message is going to be and then deliver it. If they were indeed acting in a fiduciarily responsible manner, this should not be a problem at all.

This is where DSC (IMO) has failed.. and continues to fail..

Maybe the board has determined it wants to be a club first and a conservation organization second.. that is their prerogative, and a fiduciarily sound argument could be made to support that..

But if that is true, does anyone think that its not the boards responsibility to convey that message to the membership?

Maybe its all just a misunderstanding and the board wants to put equal focus on both... ok.. if that's true.. and the board knows there are people questioning their decisions and their dedication to conservation.. does anyone think that the board should avoid responding and/or answering those questions? or that the best response is instead just to do nothing and hope the problem goes away?

I would assume the resignations of numerous key personnel would have some details that shouldn't be disclosed in public.. but the overarching questions and concerns generated by so many resignations in a short period of time, and the follow on misinformation that came out because of the board not putting together a public message to address the issue(s) (like the rumor that circled related to Corey being fired as opposed to Corey resigning..).. shouldn't those be addressed?

If the board had a dispute so great that literally over half of it left the organization inside a very tight window of time.. the CEO left.. the President left.. etc.. isn't it common sense that the membership would want to know what that dispute was over and why the board made the decision it made?

I have experience at Board level that ranges from S&P 500 companies to large non-profits that are in the public eye. I would never ask anyone on my Boards to sign an NDA, nor would I ever sign an NDA if it was put before me. When we serve on Boards, we serve investors and/or the organization. We do not serve, and should not, as allies of the leadership. If you are tapped to serve at Board level, it is expected that you have enough common sense, and experience, to handle yourself with professionalism in all of the situations that might confront the company/organization. The problem with the inane internal politics at the pro-hunting/shooting organizations is that we hunters and shooters actually need effective representation. The drama of our community's organizations weaken all of us as we are outnumbered by antis who are far better organized, and who despise that which we do.

 

[Russ16]

I have experience at Board level that ranges from S&P 500 companies to large non-profits that are in the public eye. I would never ask anyone on my Boards to sign an NDA, nor would I ever sign an NDA if it was put before me. When we serve on Boards, we serve investors and/or the organization. We do not serve, and should not, as allies of the leadership. If you are tapped to serve at Board level, it is expected that you have enough common sense, and experience, to handle yourself with professionalism in all of the situations that might confront the company/organization. The problem with the inane internal politics at the pro-hunting/shooting organizations is that we hunters and shooters actually need effective representation. The drama of our community's organizations weaken all of us as we are outnumbered by antis who are far better organized, and who despise that which we do.

I serve on 3 boards and manage one for my organization. All of them have NDAs that are signed along with the conflict of interest disclosure. It’s a common practice in the trade association and non-profit world. So I wouldn’t assign a nefarious element to it.

 

[mdwest]

Concur. I currently serve on the board of a for profit enterprise and two non profits (3 total) all three have NDAs in place. Additionally, I have served on 3 other non profit and one other for profit entities. Of those 4, two required NDAs the other 2 did not.

Its a fairly common requirement. Understanding the sensitivity of much of what happens at the board level, I completely understand an NDA requirement..

I completely agree with @Rimbaud that the board serves the shareholders (or members depending on the organization) and NOT the leadership.. or at least that it SHOULD.. the fiduciary responsibility thing is real and should not be taken lightly...

I don't see the NDA as an obstacle for this though.. as stated prior, I get why an individual board member might be hesitant to relay specific details of what has been discussed behind closed doors with the general public, or even the shareholders.. A board should be strategic by nature, and much of what gets discussed is often very sensitive..

but also said prior.. that doesn't mean that once a board makes a decision that it, or its individual members should hide behind an NDA.. the board owes the shareholders (or members) explanation for decisions made (or not made), strategic direction being handed down to executive leadership, etc...

While I 100% appreciate Greg being willing to participate in the discussion going on in this thread.. Im still not hearing DSC answering the many questions fielded by its membership or any information provided regarding the direction the organization is going, or why..

Im just hearing the defense of character of a particular board member... which really amounts to a difference in personal opinion between two people that served in leadership positions within DSC that know the person in question well..

 

[Scott CWO]

@Dave Fulson is it true that the root cause that started this mess was the OHAA award? Seems some of you were against a hunting award that some felt wasn’t enough about conservation?

 

[SFRanger7GP]

NDA is a convenient blanket excuse for not keeping your people informed. I signed multiple ones in my last job but they all pertained to technology and propriety development, not the mission or the company's goals and plans for the future. A unit Commander and his staff may have the highest level clearances in the unit (and work the hardest, etc.) but that does not exempt them from informing the troops on the mission and battle plan which is imperative for success and "sua sponte". You want to see a good military unit fall apart? Don't keep them informed. The voids of information will be filled with gossip, rumor, dissent and overall lack of motivation and support. Hell, DSC won't even tell us to take a knee, face out and drink water.

Safe hunting

 

[Dave Fulson]

I have experience at Board level that ranges from S&P 500 companies to large non-profits that are in the public eye. I would never ask anyone on my Boards to sign an NDA, nor would I ever sign an NDA if it was put before me. When we serve on Boards, we serve investors and/or the organization. We do not serve, and should not, as allies of the leadership. If you are tapped to serve at Board level, it is expected that you have enough common sense, and experience, to handle yourself with professionalism in all of the situations that might confront the company/organization. The problem with the inane internal politics at the pro-hunting/shooting organizations is that we hunters and shooters actually need effective representation. The drama of our community's organizations weaken all of us as we are outnumbered by antis who are far better organized, and who despise that which we do.

Our company indeed provided the effective representation for DSC and DSCF ( numerous major awards for our work with DSC attest to that fact) that you correctly indicated. Yet we were fired by the new board, most so new they had little or zero idea of our contributions, to appease the officers placing personal agenda over sound international promotion of DSC \ DSCF.

 

[Tiger2001]

Very interesting (and depressing) post about DSC. Thank you for providing us with this update. I am a Life Member of DSC (and SCI) as are many on this forum. I find it ironic because, as I understand it, DSC started as an SCI chapter and broke away--which created a lot of bad blood between the two organizations which lingered for many years. And I was always a bit more partial to DSC as I found them more responsive to a member's queries. In the past year I was asked to lead an effort to create a "Stammtisch" (a regular gathering) here in Stuttgart, Germany for the many American hunters. I wrote to SCI, DSC, and the NRA (amongst others) to request donations for raffles at these events. Only DSC responded and they responded very generously with swag to hand out as well as one-year gift memberships! It was a huge hit and reinforced my believe in the organization. So this turn for the worse is truly sad news!

 

[mdwest]

here in Stuttgart, Germany

As a total aside, I love your home city. Ive made several trips to Stuttgart over the years. One of my favorite Mexican restaurants on earth is actually there of all places, Joe Pena's.. I used to make a trip there every time I had cause to visit AFRICOM..