- Thread starter spectr17
- Start date
wmidbrook
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2001
- Messages
- 4,405
- Reaction score
- 3
....am wondering if they'll ulitmately end up with more clients from all the 'free' publicity they're getting. None of the corporate boycotters are criticizing USO's guiding services operation...just their legal actions.
Given the controversy, probably smart that these corporations are bailing from a business perspective.
But, the controversy itself may make old George even richer.
Right, Wrong or indifferent, old George may well prove to be the craftiest businessman in the outfitter market if you're looking at it from a busineness-only perspective.....
Given the controversy, probably smart that these corporations are bailing from a business perspective.
But, the controversy itself may make old George even richer.
Right, Wrong or indifferent, old George may well prove to be the craftiest businessman in the outfitter market if you're looking at it from a busineness-only perspective.....
wmidbrook
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2001
- Messages
- 4,405
- Reaction score
- 3
Oh, I don't doubt he has a headache from it.
Sad fact of reality is that most boycotts fail to do anything other than help name/brand recognition. E.g. Starkiss tuna (dolphin/tuna controversy) and Hershey's developing country marketing approaches of infant milk formula resulted in huge boycotts which didn't even put a dent in these conglomerates businesses. It does make the people doing the boycotting feel better in a healthy way which is good.
Sure, USO's business may take a bit of a hit in the short-run, but, I'd lay odds that he'll do better in the long haul...people will say "yeah, that name's familiar", but 99% will have no recollection of this controversy.
I'd say it's more likely it'll curb USO's zeal for going after other states...although, that may not be true if the Nevada rumors prove true.
Sad fact of reality is that most boycotts fail to do anything other than help name/brand recognition. E.g. Starkiss tuna (dolphin/tuna controversy) and Hershey's developing country marketing approaches of infant milk formula resulted in huge boycotts which didn't even put a dent in these conglomerates businesses. It does make the people doing the boycotting feel better in a healthy way which is good.
Sure, USO's business may take a bit of a hit in the short-run, but, I'd lay odds that he'll do better in the long haul...people will say "yeah, that name's familiar", but 99% will have no recollection of this controversy.
I'd say it's more likely it'll curb USO's zeal for going after other states...although, that may not be true if the Nevada rumors prove true.
Shane
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2001
- Messages
- 940
- Reaction score
- 1
Keep in mind, the large mass-consumer brands wmidbrook mentions each have markets many times (maybe thousands) larger than anything in the outdoor industry. This outfitter will feel it many times harder than Starkiss. I promise, all guides and outfitters together have fewer friends than Hershey's.
Albeit, I don't recall seeing as many Exxon gas stations around these days.
I agree that "99% will have no recollection of this controversy." Just like 99% couldn't tell you what a USO is. The outdoor industry is small and pretty tight.
Special interest groups have no place in wildlife management. It is a science. If you have a better plan (not driven by money in your pocket) go to school, become a biologist and make it happen.
We are fighting local battles up here where special interest groups have decided it's best to place a two year moratorium on Steelhead fishing in order to provide better fishing for specific groups of recreational anglers. Both fisheries biologists and state Indian tribes agree the Steelhead populations are just fine. It past in the night and now hundreds of businesses and thousands of anglers are negatively affected. The fight is on.
This is a good thing. Perhaps this outfitter will remember who makes their existence possible. They could have worked this one to be a better situation for everyone.
Albeit, I don't recall seeing as many Exxon gas stations around these days.
I agree that "99% will have no recollection of this controversy." Just like 99% couldn't tell you what a USO is. The outdoor industry is small and pretty tight.
Special interest groups have no place in wildlife management. It is a science. If you have a better plan (not driven by money in your pocket) go to school, become a biologist and make it happen.
We are fighting local battles up here where special interest groups have decided it's best to place a two year moratorium on Steelhead fishing in order to provide better fishing for specific groups of recreational anglers. Both fisheries biologists and state Indian tribes agree the Steelhead populations are just fine. It past in the night and now hundreds of businesses and thousands of anglers are negatively affected. The fight is on.
This is a good thing. Perhaps this outfitter will remember who makes their existence possible. They could have worked this one to be a better situation for everyone.
wmidbrook
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2001
- Messages
- 4,405
- Reaction score
- 3
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
I fully agree.
Differentiating between non-residents and residents is purely politics.
Wildlife Management Science is absolutely unaffected by the decision. Wildlife managers still set the harvest quotas.
AZ having to issue more tags was MISMANAGEMENT--AZ predicted they would win in court and issued tags based on that prediction. When their prediction did not hold true, they had to pay the consequences.....trophy quality and MO's may suffer somewhat as a result of their decision.
Shame on Arizona's Wildlife managers for not playing it more conservatively!
Of course, if AZ does the right thing, they'll do what it takes to bring management objectives back on track. They may also have to adjust license/tag prices to meet their budget.
But, instead of doing the right thing (raising prices just enough to cover their budget), I would bet AZ wildlife officials are p.o'd and will want to "punish" non-residents by outlandishly raising tag prices for non-residents. Once again, both a political (to appease residents) and self-serving (to increase their budge) reaction.
That's my two bits worth....
I fully agree.
Differentiating between non-residents and residents is purely politics.
Wildlife Management Science is absolutely unaffected by the decision. Wildlife managers still set the harvest quotas.
AZ having to issue more tags was MISMANAGEMENT--AZ predicted they would win in court and issued tags based on that prediction. When their prediction did not hold true, they had to pay the consequences.....trophy quality and MO's may suffer somewhat as a result of their decision.
Shame on Arizona's Wildlife managers for not playing it more conservatively!
Of course, if AZ does the right thing, they'll do what it takes to bring management objectives back on track. They may also have to adjust license/tag prices to meet their budget.
But, instead of doing the right thing (raising prices just enough to cover their budget), I would bet AZ wildlife officials are p.o'd and will want to "punish" non-residents by outlandishly raising tag prices for non-residents. Once again, both a political (to appease residents) and self-serving (to increase their budge) reaction.
That's my two bits worth....
