yoderjac
5 year old buck +
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
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