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

[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.