Another Reason to Boycott S.T.A.R.: Tripletail regulations passed

[Reefman]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

We already know where CCA stands, as past actions are more telling than present promises. Progress might be possible, but only if CCA realizes that maintaining their present course is going to start costing them in terms of reduced membership. It is a mistake to let them get through most of their fundraising in the current year.

I expect CCA to continue to give lip service to keep membership high and dues flowing in, mainly through S.T.A.R. participation. We really need them to commit to immediately CEASE and DESIST pushing increased regulations without sound scientific support.

Adding agenda items that support habitat issues in Big Lake would be unconvincing without simultaneously renouncing past support for bad policies.

Meaning no disrespect MathGeek but I feel there is an undercurrent of a vendetta placed on CCA by your posts. I would have nothing to do with that. I would rather go forward in the hopes of bettering BL by working with State/CCA and other agencies in an amiable fashion. You seem hell bent on destroying any credibility that CCA has earned in this State. I still believe that CCA has been doing a good job in conservation issues affecting our whole coast as well as our neighbors in the Gulf.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Reefman

Meaning no disrespect MathGeek but I feel there is an undercurrent of a vendetta placed on CCA by your posts. I would have nothing to do with that. I would rather go forward in the hopes of bettering BL by working with State/CCA and other agencies in an amiable fashion. You seem hell bent on destroying any credibility that CCA has earned in this State. I still believe that CCA has been doing a good job in conservation issues affecting our whole coast as well as our neighbors in the Gulf.

The main idea of the boycott is to prevent further funding of the group with a proven history of lobbying for restrictive regulations.

CCA cannot correct past wrongs without acknowledging them and being accountable not to repeat past mistakes.

It's not a vendetta (which literally means a blood feud), it's insisting upon moving toward science based management to benefit all stakeholders and away from management based on fear based on the desires of an elite group of stakeholders.

I think of the current boycott efforts as closer to the boycott of Smith and Wesson firearms in 2000 after they got to cozy with the Clinton Administration and the gun grabbers. This boycott was very effective in both sending a message to other companies and also in pressuring Smith and Wesson to publicly renounce their past actions furthering a gun control agenda.

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

I think of the current boycott efforts as closer to the boycott of Smith and Wesson firearms in 2000 after they got to cozy with the Clinton Administration and the gun grabbers. This boycott was very effective in both sending a message to other companies and also in pressuring Smith and Wesson to publicly renounce their past actions furthering a gun control agenda.

I hardly see the similarity between the two. On the one hand, you are talking about a non-profit group, and a very localized issue. On the other hand, you have a For-profit company and a national issue.

Two different situations in my opinion.

I get the point you are trying to make, but its just not the same situation.

[lsufish]

Originally Posted by Smalls

I hardly see the similarity between the two. On the one hand, you are talking about a non-profit group, and a very localized issue. On the other hand, you have a For-profit company and a national issue.

Two different situations in my opinion.

I get the point you are trying to make, but its just not the same situation.

It is, but it isn't. Every organization, for profit or non-profit thrive on resources. Resources are man hours and money. Money trumping everything else. The general public has a choice on where to place their charitable/conservation dollars, and in this regard CCA is competing for resources like any for profit company would.

Granted, CCA's goal isn't to hit an earnings target per quarter to please owners/shareholders and receive a positive impact to their stock price, they do aim to please their members and the general public to get what they need most... money.

The term non-profit in and of itself is misleading. While the overall goal isn't to make money, CCA has full time employees that are not volunteers. Their compensation is directly correlated to the success of the organization.

CAA has followed a certain agenda for the past few years, some argue for it, some argue against it, but the organization continues to move forward because of funding. The more funding it receives, the more they want to continue the behaviors that lead to the funding in the first place.
This makes perfect sense.

A public company will stick to the same business model if they see increased demand for their stock based upon their current business strategy.

Everyone knows that the consumer benefits when they have choice and competition. CCA right now has no real completion for these types of dollars.
So the options are as follows:
1. Agree with CCA and support them
2. Disagree, but still support them because no better alternative.
3. Create a new entity and give "consumers" a choice on where they want to spend their conservation dollars and which agenda to support
4. ***** and do nothing

In conclusion, MG's point is right on in that money and donations are CCA's true earnings report. If those continue to increase, they believe they are doing a good job based on the only feedback that matters.

Its up to each individual to decide what "grade" they want to give them.