Boycott Dick's

[yoderjac]

So, here is something we should ask ourselves. Even though a small percent of Dick's business is with firearms and hunting equipment, now that they have decided not to sell one specific style of firearm, we consider boycotting them. Some of their competition like REI sells all kinds of outdoor equipment but sells no hunting equipment or firearms.

Do we do ourselves a disservice? Hunters are declining as a group. When we boycott stores like Dick's, do we (to the extent we have any impact) drive their customers to alternatives like REI. Would a boycott push a store like Dick's to reconsider their decision or would it tend to push them toward an REI like paradigm? We have places like Bass Pro and Cabelas the focus more on consumptive sports and we have the REIs that ignore them. Do the in between stores play a positive role regardless of how limited their focus on hunting? When a kid goes into a place like REI, the absence of hunting equipment reinforces the animal rights perspective that hunting is unacceptable. When a kid goes into Dick's with mom to buy her jogging outfit, they are at least exposed to hunting equipment and firearms with some level of equivalency with tennis racquets, golf clubs, and stationary bicycles. Does this exposure reinforce the social acceptability of hunting? Is this a potential gateway to recruitment?

I don't know the answers to all of these. I just think we should all consider that while we may not like the decision that Dick's recently made, and we all tend toward a knee jerk reaction, I wonder if we are cutting off our nose to spite our face.

Just some food for thought...

Thanks,

Jack

 

[Bowsnbucks]

^^^^^ You're correct about hunter numbers declining. That's a nationwide trend. I taught both my sons to hunt and fish - and it took no pushing at all. They were all fired up on their own, maybe from seeing how much I enjoy it. I'm saddened to see the numbers declining. All my friends and relatives hunt & fish, and the fun and relaxation we've had are priceless. So many young people don't know what they're missing. And so many because of "thumb games".

I wouldn't hazard a guess as to how any boycotts will work. Our local Dick's has lots more athletic type stuff than hunting / fishing. I've bought tree ladders from them several times over the years. Any time I've been in there, the bulk of the people are in areas of the store OTHER than the hunting / shooting area.

 

[Bowsnbucks]

Spud and J-Bird - I've never understood how any person who gets shot while committing a crime has any RIGHT to sue - or their relatives for that matter. If they made the decision to commit the crime, they ( and their relatives ) should legally have no right to sue anyone. IMO - if someone decides to rob a store, bank, or breaks into a home, or tries to mug another person, and gets shot ............ TOUGH SH*T.

 

[Tree Spud]

Well Dick’s online sales are ever increasing while stores are decreasing. I haven’t been in a “big box retailer” in months, but guess where the shoes on my feet came from, the online sales division of dicks (previously they partnered with eBay for ecommerce). I haven’t been to Roger’s Sporting Goods in years but magically most of my waterfowl gear arrives. It’s amazing. Academy is another a lot of my stuff comes from. I will have to go to the city to buy a newer car Saturday and I am not looking forward to it.

Thats the problem for retailers like Walmart, Home Depot, Dicks, etc. Much of their brand image is tied into their store front. Converting to online is hard, some of these well know retailers have terrible online search services. Then they have to go from store inventory system that receives large volumes, to single package shipment ... not always easy.

 

[Catscratch]

A boycott is punishment for doing something wrong. Many of us think Dicks has broken the rules and need punished. It's a matter of principle. Yoder, to say we need to consider forging punishment because stores like Dicks might help us in the future is akin to sweeping it under the rug when your star quarterback gets caught taking money, raping women, or using PED's. Truth is that this train of thought has helped many teams, but ultimately "getting away with it" hurts the sport in the long run. If that crap was never pushed under the rug and violators were met with swift and decisive punishment then maybe less of them would try those activities in the first place.

I personally don't like the concept of sweeping it under the rug because they "might" help us long term. I'm ok with cutting our nose off in spite of our face if it's warranted and the right thing to do.

 

[JFK52]

The only thing I have ever bought at Dicks was a pair of sporting gloves that I liked to wear in the winter when I was driving my Suburban. So I am already boycotting them because they don't have the merchandise that I am in the market to buy.

 

[yoderjac]

A boycott is punishment for doing something wrong. Many of us think Dicks has broken the rules and need punished. It's a matter of principle. Yoder, to say we need to consider forging punishment because stores like Dicks might help us in the future is akin to sweeping it under the rug when your star quarterback gets caught taking money, raping women, or using PED's. Truth is that this train of thought has helped many teams, but ultimately "getting away with it" hurts the sport in the long run. If that crap was never pushed under the rug and violators were met with swift and decisive punishment then maybe less of them would try those activities in the first place.

I personally don't like the concept of sweeping it under the rug because they "might" help us long term. I'm ok with cutting our nose off in spite of our face if it's warranted and the right thing to do.

First, I did not say we should forgive Dick's for the action they took. If that was your take away Cat, you missed my point. It was a strategic question. Is it "wrong" for REI and many other stores to cater to outdoor activities and not sell firearms? Of course not. Is it "wrong" for a store that caters to both consumptive and non-consumptive outdoors pursuits that sells firearms to change their focus more toward non-consumptive activities? Again I'd say "No". There is not a right and wrong here. This is the case of a business making a business decision. It is not right or wrong, it just is. It will upset some segment of their current and future customers and please others. Whether the business decision turns out to be financially beneficial remains to be seen.

My point was that in the long-game, stores like Dick's play a bridge role in properly socializing firearms and hunting with the general non-hunting public and may even act as a conduit for bringing new folks into the sport. My question was this: If we would boycott Dick's and it was effective, what would there response be and what would it mean to our sport? Would they throw in the towel and say we screwed up and start selling that style firearm again? Or would they look to the future, see a declining demographic in consumptive sports, and simply phase them out all together. If the do the latter, what impact will that have in the long-run on recruitment? Would it send a message to other bridge stores to accelerate the phase out of consumptive sports support?

When a cop detains a perpetrator who has committed a heinous crime, he has the urge to take the guy into a back alley on the way to the station and administer some immediate justice. Those who yield to that temptation often find their long-term objective of a long prison sentence is vacated. They got a temporary good feeling of immediate justice followed by years of regret.

I don't have the answers to the above questions but they are worth considering before acting.

Thanks,

Jack

 

[yoderjac]

I wanted to follow this up with some positive news! Gander Mountain has some of the best mail order prices on hunting equipment you could find years ago. Eventually they sold their mail-order business (I think to Cabelas as I recall). At that point they were restricted to brick and mortar for the duration of their agreement. Not long ago, they went out of business. They sold out to Camping World.

A few weeks ago I was driving by the old Gander Mountain store and saw that it had reopened as Gander Outdoors. I didn't even bother to stop. I assumed being owned by Camping world it would primarily be camping and other non-consumptive sports related. As I was driving by again today, I had some time to kill so I decided to stop. I was very pleasantly surprised to find that the new store carries just as much hunting, shooting, and fishing supplies if not more than when it was Gander Mountain.

Thanks,

Jack

 

[TreeDaddy]

Dick's has made a "business decision" on political posturing and advancing a narrative targeting a specific demographic group(younger,urban,etc)

I made a "business decision" not to shop there........

bill

 

[Mortenson]

Dick's has made a "business decision" on political posturing and advancing a narrative targeting a specific demographic group(younger,urban,etc)

I made a "business decision" not to shop there........

bill

Same here. Just as I made the decision not to shop at Target. And I'll buy no more business flannels from LL Bean. Nor will I fly Delta.

Yoderjac, thanks for the info on Gander. Glad to see the nice building in Eau Claire will be a Gander again this spring.

 

[yoderjac]

Dick's has made a "business decision" on political posturing and advancing a narrative targeting a specific demographic group(younger,urban,etc)

I made a "business decision" not to shop there........

bill

Same here. Just as I made the decision not to shop at Target. And I'll buy no more business flannels from LL Bean. Nor will I fly Delta.

Yoderjac, thanks for the info on Gander. Glad to see the nice building in Eau Claire will be a Gander again this spring.

And I see absolutely nothing wrong with that as I said in an earlier post. There is a difference between individual businesses and individual consumers making individual decisions and a boycott. A boycott is typically and organized special interest group attempting to influence a businesses decision through and organized effort to refrain from buying their products. I'm saying that as a special interest group, we hunters, should consider all the ramification and think strategically before acting. That is not to say that individuals should not make individual decisions of conscience and express their opinions.

As for Gander, I don't know if this will happen with all of their brick and mortar stores. I highly doubt it. If Gander Mountain was losing money and forced to liquidate, I'm sure the new owners will change things to become more liquid. There may be efficiencies of scale, but I would also expect the less profitable locations not to reopen. That is just a personal opinion and I have no inside knowledge of their plans.

Thanks,

Jack

 

[Catscratch]

And I see absolutely nothing wrong with that as I said in an earlier post. There is a difference between individual businesses and individual consumers making individual decisions and a boycott. A boycott is typically and organized special interest group attempting to influence a businesses decision through and organized effort to refrain from buying their products. I'm saying that as a special interest group, we hunters, should consider all the ramification and think strategically before acting. That is not to say that individuals should not make individual decisions of conscience and express their opinions.

As for Gander, I don't know if this will happen with all of their brick and mortar stores. I highly doubt it. If Gander Mountain was losing money and forced to liquidate, I'm sure the new owners will change things to become more liquid. There may be efficiencies of scale, but I would also expect the less profitable locations not to reopen. That is just a personal opinion and I have no inside knowledge of their plans.

Thanks,

Jack

You are splitting hair here. I see nowhere in this thread anyone saying that we need to start an international special interest group to organize a boycott. This thread started with an individual stating that Dicks dropped the ball on 2nd Amendment rights and that HE was no longer going to spend money there. Several people jumped in and said the same as the OP, but an organized effort to boycott has never been on the table.

I understood your point perfectly. You stated that we might re-consider punishing Dicks because it could turn out negative for us in the long run. You plainly said that there could be long term effects to stores like Dicks doing away with gun sales and that could be detrimental to our interests through social ramifications. I get it, and you might be right. I also strongly disagree with it in principle. If their sales drop zero percent and they get zero bad media for this, then they have their answer as to if they did the right thing or not. To continue to shop there with the HOPE that it helps us long term validates their actions. I will state it again as I did in a previous post; in principle it is wrong to not punish out of fear that they may not help you in the longrun to do so. Now this may or may not be correct, but I think it hurts us more to stay silent on the matter than to make a statement (even if it means they might pull that department all together). You backed your statement by saying we should at least consider the future ramifications, that you weren't suggesting we actually do this but to consider it. Considering multiple paths is important, but I content that the answer is so rhetorically obvious that considering the ramifications is pointless and only confirms that they made the right choice.

It is not wrong to not sell guns. It is wrong to change your stance on selling guns do to social media when you are going to continue to sell guns that are just as deadly as the single one you are no longer going to sell. In this respect they have caved to social media and slapped the constitution in the face, all the while dangling a peace offering out there with other guns for sale.

Lol, you got me ranting Jack. :)

I know your point is to consider the possibilities and I'm all for that... but I don't think that "what if" should be factored into this one at the moment. People and organizations need to be decisive. The consequences in either direction could be pretty significant.

Also, thanks for posting about the Gander Mountain stores. I have one 1.5hr away that I need to drive by sometime. I hope they have re-opened it to a new store.

 

[Freeburn]

Hi All,

As a Canadian, I have followed the events of the last couple weeks with much interest. Throughout all of the US boards that are discussing Dicks, LL Bean, etc there is always the statement that these stores have, to quote Catscratch, "slapped the constitution in the face". As an outsider, this seems to me to be a private retailer no longer wishing to sell a rifle that has be used in most high profile mass shootings. I don't understand how this is disrespectful to the 2nd Amendment. Can you explain this to me? Thanks.

Sean

 

[yoderjac]

You are splitting hair here. I see nowhere in this thread anyone saying that we need to start an international special interest group to organize a boycott. This thread started with an individual stating that Dicks dropped the ball on 2nd Amendment rights and that HE was no longer going to spend money there. Several people jumped in and said the same as the OP, but an organized effort to boycott has never been on the table.

I understood your point perfectly. You stated that we might re-consider punishing Dicks because it could turn out negative for us in the long run. You plainly said that there could be long term effects to stores like Dicks doing away with gun sales and that could be detrimental to our interests through social ramifications. I get it, and you might be right. I also strongly disagree with it in principle. If their sales drop zero percent and they get zero bad media for this, then they have their answer as to if they did the right thing or not. To continue to shop there with the HOPE that it helps us long term validates their actions. I will state it again as I did in a previous post; in principle it is wrong to not punish out of fear that they may not help you in the longrun to do so. Now this may or may not be correct, but I think it hurts us more to stay silent on the matter than to make a statement (even if it means they might pull that department all together). You backed your statement by saying we should at least consider the future ramifications, that you weren't suggesting we actually do this but to consider it. Considering multiple paths is important, but I content that the answer is so rhetorically obvious that considering the ramifications is pointless and only confirms that they made the right choice.

It is not wrong to not sell guns. It is wrong to change your stance on selling guns do to social media when you are going to continue to sell guns that are just as deadly as the single one you are no longer going to sell. In this respect they have caved to social media and slapped the constitution in the face, all the while dangling a peace offering out there with other guns for sale.

Lol, you got me ranting Jack. :)

I know your point is to consider the possibilities and I'm all for that... but I don't think that "what if" should be factored into this one at the moment. People and organizations need to be decisive. The consequences in either direction could be pretty significant.

Also, thanks for posting about the Gander Mountain stores. I have one 1.5hr away that I need to drive by sometime. I hope they have re-opened it to a new store.

Fair enough Cat. Perhaps I read too much into the word Boycott. Maybe I'm using "right and wrong" in a different context as well. If REI, because of some social media pressure (or whatever kind of pressure) caved and decided to start selling firearms, I would not see that as "wrong". Perhaps it might be thought of as two-faced or yielding to pressure or compromising their ethic. However, one could also look at it as a responsible CEO properly executing his fiduciary duty to his shareholders if he concluded the market was trending the other direction.

I do have to say that I'm no more happy about the decision than you.

Thanks,

Jack

 

[Catscratch]

It very well could be a great financial decisions for them. I hope it's not but I also understand that our population and gun acceptance is changing. It seems that firearm sales has been through the roof in the last decade, but if I had to guess it isn't due to bringing new people in but instead it's due to the same people buying more firearms.

Freeburn - I made that statement while in a little of a rant, but I do value the premise of our constitution a lot (in many respects, not just 2nd amendment rights). To sum it up, our founding fathers fled from a tyrannical government and much of our constitution is worded in a way that promotes freedom and the people's power to keep a government from becoming too powerful (so powerful that it's people loose rights and freedoms). Many checks and balances are built into our governmental systems and one of them is the right of the people to form a militia that is powerful enough to defend itself from it's own government. It has nothing to do with hunting as hunting isn't a right by the constitution, but defending yourself is the right of a free person. Hope this helps but I fear that I have strayed from what you are asking...

 

[bbcoach]

Here's a BIG Addition to the Dick's Sporting Goods SAGA! A card carrying NRA member 20 year old, working in the Sporting Goods section, resigned today at our local Dick's. He turned in a resignation letter that stated, "Dick's can ban the sale of weapons to anyone under 21 years old but it's OK for a 20 year old working for Dick's, to sell those weapons." Go FIGURE!

 

[North Mo]

Dicks has done more than just make a business decision. The letter and comments that the CEO have made outlining his recommendations for changes in firearms law means that Dicks has entered the political fray and the CEO has encouraged other businesses to do the same. That is an assault on the 2nd Amendment. For myself I will not spend another penny there. If you are not an NRA member or a GAO member please join or at least contact your elected representatives.

 

[yoderjac]

As for entering the political fray, that is true for every sizeable company. Whether it is lobbyists behind the scenes, PACs, advertising, contributions to political candidates, or whatever, most larger companies are active in the political arena. There are clearly some privately tightly held companies whose owners are willing to make financial sacrifices to advance their personal political views but in most cases, especially publically held companies, it comes down to the bottom line. When a company takes a political stand, in most cases you will find that, rightly or wrongly, they believe it will improve the bottom line.

As for disrespecting the constitution, as Cat acknowledges, we all tend to overstate things when we have an emotional reaction to something we care deeply about. I would say there decision is clearly less than supportive of second amendment objectives.

Here is one thing I find interesting. The reason we have a 2nd amendment is as a last resort check and balance on the federal government power over the states. It is in fact to ensure the rest of the rights are not suspended. Rights like those that Dick's exercises with their recent actions and rights that we exercise when we criticize those actions and when we make choices about what to buy and where to buy it.

Thanks,

Jack

 

[North Mo]

It is understandable for any business to be politically active about business issues like taxes, TIF's, zoning, patent laws, etc. When a corporation decides to cross over into social issues then they open themselves to the risk of alienating potential customers. If Dicks decided for purely financial reasons that it would not just stop the sale of certain firearms themselves but also to become active in encouraging legal restrictions then I will do my part to show them the error of that decision. Unfortunately many corporations are becoming a threat to the 1st, 2nd and 4th Amendments.

 

[yoderjac]

It is understandable for any business to be politically active about business issues like taxes, TIF's, zoning, patent laws, etc. When a corporation decides to cross over into social issues then they open themselves to the risk of alienating potential customers. If Dicks decided for purely financial reasons that it would not just stop the sale of certain firearms themselves but also to become active in encouraging legal restrictions then I will do my part to show them the error of that decision. Unfortunately many corporations are becoming a threat to the 1st, 2nd and 4th Amendments.

Not necessarily. One view might be that they have two customer bases, a historic but slowly dwindling consumptive outdoors base and a growing non-consumptive outdoors base. The decision not to sell one specific style of firearm may be an attempt to split the difference. Perhaps they thought they could spin it as "It is just one type of firearm not typically used for hunting anyway. We still support our hunting clientele." to one base and "We are taking some responsible steps..." to the other base. Maybe it works, maybe it back fires and both bases are unhappy. Or, perhaps you are right and their executives are placing a personal agenda ahead of their fiduciary responsibility.

The amendments to the constitution limit the power of the federal government over the states and the people. Corporations, at least US based corporations, are simply groups of the people aligning for a specific purpose. None of our rights are absolute. My freedoms can easily impinge in the freedoms of another. It is the job of the courts to balance those rights.

Thanks,

Jack