HOLY CRAP GUYS SORRY THIS IS SO LONG!
Let me start out by saying the following; my hope here is to provoke positive and meaningful discussion and make a contribution to the cause. In the paragraphs below I am going to express some opinions and disagree with a few folks here. One of whom is johnnyblues. Before I do I want to take the opportunity to say this. Even though I have a different point of view and opinion, I agree with so much of what Johnny has said I feel a little odd about disagreeing at all. In addition, even though we have some points of disagreement, the comments he has offered and the spirit in which they are intended are admirable and a perfect example why we should all speak out. Johnny your comments have prompted dialogue and compelled me to think deeply and take time out to post the following which I hope will further encourage the dialogue. Thank you sir. Nothing but respect
Anywho...
You mention Ruger and other gun manufactures give away firearms at banquets /events....Who is going to these banquets? Hunters and possibly their spouse and kids...We ARE NOT reaching out to the non hunting public as the anti's do. And they do it VERY well.
...
Instead of giving away millions of dollars in products let them put that money to better use by assuring us hunting will continue in the future. We need to change public perception of hunting and hunters. We need professional help here. I m not going to say hire a powerful PR firm, as I ve said it way too much already.
When it comes to businesses, one size definitely does not fit all. There are many corporate structures but I think what matters most to us is the difference between a public company and a privately held company.
Why does this matter? Because we ought to understand what we can and should expect from any given company. If we ask for or expect something unrealistic we have zero chance of getting it. Therefore failure is a certainty.
For example: I mentioned earlier in this thread that Ruger donates millions of dollars of product every year to organizations across the country for the purpose of supporting that organization in it's fund raising efforts and also for the purpose of brand exposure (marketing) for Ruger. This is part of their marketing budget. The shareholders of Ruger support this activity because they perceive it (correctly) as a necessary expense to continue to build the Ruger brand, generate sales, increase the value of their stock and increase shareholder dividends. The perception would be altogether different (and it should be) if Ruger told it's shareholders we are going to give SCI $2 million dollars to spend or distribute as they see fit to help in the fight against anti-hunting organizations.
Shareholders:
Wait... What? You're going to give away $2 million dollars? Ummm, mister Fifer have you been out in the sun a bit too long?
I know, that's sarcasm. Just throwing in a little dry humor, but you get the drift. It is very difficult for public companies to do some "stuff" or to do "stuff" in certain ways. In the long run we want all these companies to be as profitable and successful as possible for the following reason; A financially healthy, prosperous company has money to support the causes we want them to fight for. A broke company does not have any money for anybody or anything. Everyone is better served by happy shareholders not anxious, pissed off shareholders.
We ARE NOT reaching out to the non hunting public as the anti's do. Instead of giving away millions of dollars in products let them put that money to better use by assuring us hunting will continue in the future. We need to change public perception of hunting and hunters. We need professional help here. I m not going to say hire a powerful PR firm, as I ve said it way too much already.
So, here in lies the rub. I feel compelled to argue that it is a HUGE MISTAKE to ask or expect them to "reach out to the non hunting public as the anti's do." I will try to explain why below.
We collectively share many common interests, meaning companies and consumers. Hunters, shooters, firearm manufacturers, archery equipment manufacturers, ammo manufacturers, etc. The list is loooong. We all want to ensure the survival of the game and non-game animals which we love. We want to ensure our right to keep and bear arms is not infringed. We want our grandchildren to know the thrill of the hunt and the pride in their first success. And many, many other things.
OK, we all agree on that. Especially these corporations. No right to own guns, no gun manufacturers. Rocket science.
My argument is this. Businesses such as Ruger are great at what they do. Ruger in fact is exceedingly great at what they do. What they do is MANUFACTURING.
They capture innovative ideas, develop them, manufacture them, then they market and sell them. And they do this well enough that they make a profit and fund more of their ideas and make more money.
Companies such as this are structured from the ground up to do what they do and do it well. When companies start trying to be something they are not, or be everything to everybody, they become bad at what they used to do well and become nothing to anybody. This is not speculation but proven fact.
If we ask these companies to take on the task of educating the non-hunting public about conservation and the benefits of hunting lion and elephant and all of the many other things we want organizations like SCI to do it will be an unmitigated disaster. There will be no clear unified message, no strategy and no benefit and no positive results.
This is why it is of crucial importance that SCI, DSC, and all the others to get organized and get in the game. We need organizations with a clear and specific purpose that are designed from the ground up to do what they do. You wouldn't run a dragster on a NASCAR track and that is exactly what it would be like asking business to assume the role of a conservation organization, or a lobby, or a public information organization.
Business needs to participate, and they do, as a funding power. Believe me, most of these companies are not just sitting on the sidelines counting their money. Can they do more? Always. Should they do more? Many of them should.
Because I have used Ruger as an example I will stick with them. Here are some more examples of the way business contributes to our cause.
NSSF Rimfire Challenge. Ruger started this a few years ago from the ground up with a bunch of industry partners. This is a nationwide, standardized format, rimfire match designed for the whole family. Anyone, any age, any experience level, from never even seen a gun before to a professional can participate. Ruger and now NSSF mandates that.
Ruger started this and got it off the ground and then NSSF stepped up, grabbed the baton and is growing this match across the country. At the end of this month the Northwest Regional Championship will be held at Parma Rod and Gun Club here in Idaho, not too far from Boise. It will be a two day event and there will be close to 200 shooters from across the country as well as many from outside the US. There will be close to $40,000 worth of prizes on the prize table, all donated by companies within the gun industry.
The reason Ruger spent millions of dollars getting this started? To recruit new people into the shooting sports. ESPECIALLY JUNIOR SHOOTERS AND SOCCER MOMS. NSSF didn't have the budget or the horsepower so Ruger stepped up.
http://www.nssf.org/rimfire/#&panel1-2
NSSF First Shots - This program is designed to recruit and educate people about safe gun handling and ownership and the joys of shooting, hunting, and the shooting sports.
http://nssf.org/firstshots/
My belief is the key is in the SCI's and DSC's of the world, and they definitely need funding. But all the funding in the world will not make the needed difference if they don't bring out their A-Game. An organization is nothing but an idea and a dream without its membership. The members of these organizations need to become more involved. THAT MEANS US! ALL OF US!
Business and industry have always stepped up. More than most, actually, if the truth be known. Business and industry will continue to step up.
A fully functional organization of motivated, talented people is all that's needed. They will go get the funding and industry will be there with the needed support. But this is becoming a chicken or the egg and it should not be and most definitely does not need to be.
SCI, DSC and other organizations are already in existence. We should not have to create a new one. That would be like saying the gun manufacturers and the Big Box Sporting Goods Retailers of the world need to form an organization to defend the second amendment and our gun rights. We already have one. It's called the NRA.
We already have an organization who's motto is "First for Hunters". I believe that would be SCI.
Well here's what I have to say to SCI. Today is the day. If there is still an SCI a few years from now it will be because you heard the message from your constituency. The members are telling you, "ya better damn well git 'er done!" Same goes for you DSC. And there's more people willing to step up now than any time before. SO NO EFFING EXCUSES. GET IT DONE! If the talent at the top is not up to the task they should find folks who are. If they don't have the character to admit they are not up to the task the membership should deliver the message clearly and succinctly.
There is plenty of talent within the membership of these organizations. Getting the right butts in the right chairs is what is needed.
For everyone who actually read this all the way through to the end

Little bit longer than I planned.
Sorry 'bout that
