# Like Walmart do Ya'



## Lukikus2 (Aug 18, 2011)

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/08/17/18688041.php


----------



## m1garand30064 (Aug 18, 2011)

Oh that's awesome.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Aug 18, 2011)

"Wal-Mart announced this week its efforts to help fund the demise of  both the recreational and commercial fishing industry while also working  to ensure that the next generation of sportsmen will have less access  to coastal fish stocks than at any point in U.S. history," according to a  news release from RFA.

Guess who's off of my list for "go to" tackle and outdoors supplies. But then, they've captured such a large percentage of the tree hugger population as patrons they'll never miss us lowly little outdoorsmen.

Sam Walton is probably rolling in his grave over what his kin are doing with this company.


----------



## Lukikus2 (Aug 18, 2011)

I will never spend another dime in that place.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Aug 18, 2011)

Lukikus2 said:


> I will never spend another dime in that place.



I agree. When a corporation gets so big that they think they are too powerful to fail and start implementing policies that are contrary to the interest of their client it is time for the client to prove them wrong.


----------



## Jeff Phillips (Aug 18, 2011)

Lukikus2 said:


> I will never spend another dime in that place.



X2

Already boycotting Sears and Target. I can live just fine without Wal-Mart


----------



## leoparddog (Aug 18, 2011)

Good read and good to know.  I was going to buy some new fishing line soon, but I'll head over to BPS instead.

The next thing we all need to do is to let Wal-Mart know that we are unhappy.


----------



## nickel back (Aug 18, 2011)

funny thing is,they will not stop selling tackle and outdoors supplies.


----------



## Bryannecker (Aug 26, 2011)

The Ford Foundation gives millions to left wing groups, too. Sunoco is the base for the wealth of Pew. But Walmart did sponsor the FWL tournaments and may still do so?? Some of the stores they have still have extensive fishing tackle for sale. Walmart has sponsored fishermen in the SKA, but has cut back due to the economy. I do drive a big ole FORD F-250 and love it. I own three Fords. My family is a ford family! The choice of a government/Obama Motors (GM or Chrysler) is totally repugnant to me! Citico is owned by a communist lead nation in South America. So, I will not buy their gas or that of Sunoco. 
The founders of Walmart are dead and their children may be a different breed, but catch shares for recreational fishermen was voted down by SAFM recently, if I recall, correctly. That was due to individual angler opposition. It is losing traction and may be a dead issue, soon. 

EDF and the Ocean Conservancy, and other so-called conservation groups may be bad for us and we must fight them with our individual contact with the politicians. There are other groups popping up everywhere in the name of ocean spacial planning and ocean use zones, so the fight is left to us as rugged individuals to expose them, and not elect those who support them. So, my advice is to think for yourself, and form your own opinions so that you can act accordingly. All of this is about the money, and control of our lives. Read my post about who has the authority to regulate us recreational fishermen and form your own path to take back our country, life, liberty and pursuit of happiness!
Capt. Jimmy Newman


----------



## Reel Big-uns (Aug 27, 2011)

read this.

http://www.wavelife.com/Article/Art...titive-saltwater-fishing-has-finally-arrived/ 

Now which side are they on?

Walmart is like every other hypocritical, special interest group that tries to balance their support among several different rival groups to try to make themselves look good from all sides, just to be in the mix when the winner triumphs with the most supporters or wins an election.

 Can anyone say politics?

I believe their main agenda is a fat bottom line and if any one group gets to be too much of a negative strain on their image. Just like the core, of a political party, does with extremist that hurts their chances of winning an election. then they would no longer have any more to do with it  but, as long as there is no imbalance, then they will keep supporting, multiple, rival, interest groups.



Everyone of us is just a marker, in a Corporate State.


----------



## georgia_home (Aug 27, 2011)

What I always wondered is what kind of "sell job" these groups gave to the particular companies in question?

How is it that groups that represent things I like don't manage to get support? Or maybe they do? I hate to think it, but I wonder how many of these big companies, actually their management, actually even know what they are supporting.

I have to believe that these groups have whole departments, big staffs, multi-million $$$ programs across a whole range of support programs.

Anyway, it would be interesting to know how many companies support both sides of lots of issues so as to attempt personal boycotts? 

Random musing done...


----------



## Bryannecker (Aug 30, 2011)

*Nothing is cut and dried!*



georgia_home said:


> What I always wondered is what kind of "sell job" these groups gave to the particular companies in question?
> 
> How is it that groups that represent things I like don't manage to get support? Or maybe they do? I hate to think it, but I wonder how many of these big companies, actually their management, actually even know what they are supporting.
> 
> ...



For instance:  My Dad was honored by the Walmart in Pooler, Georgia for being a WWII veteran who survived Iwo Jima.  He had a photo of the flag raising on _Mt. Suribachi_ taken by Joe Rosenthal whom he knew.  It did not have a frame.  He brought it to a veterans day program and the good folks at that store framed it for him at no cost.  I still have it and it is signed by many of the men who were there with my Dad.  He signed it, too.  They sponsor the FLW, too!  Now, go figure!!!

So, I tend to agree with your statements,  _Supra_

Nothing is simple, today, there is good and bad to every situation.  

Capt. Jimmy


----------



## Wild Turkey (Aug 30, 2011)

Wonder how many millions they would loose if we sportmen and women boycotted their stores.
Im in.


----------



## Maggie Dog (Sep 6, 2011)

I'm a member of a non profit, We by gifts for foster kids during Christmas. 300+ kids in our community. 5 years ago we were seeking donations and our luck was running low. Walked into Walmart and told the story of our mission to the Manager, he pulled out the corporate check book and said "How much you guys need?"


You are right, nothing is simple anymore.


----------



## snookman (Sep 17, 2011)

I have officially bought my last hook from wal-mart


----------



## zedex (Sep 18, 2011)

Here are a couple interesting reads I found.

 The first being about all these nonprofit organizations that claim all the fish are gone, but their agendas become clear.....sell fear of depletion of fisheries and get gov't grant dollars to do so. Be sure to read the comments section. Lots of great links and guess who is mentioned: Wal-Mart.

 In that comment, a link was included showing an essay written for, and funded by, Wal-Mart. This essay spells gloom and doom for the industry and was presented to members of congress and Obammy for their consideration. It is called, ironically, "Oceans of Abundance"

 Here they are, the first link exposing the the eco-alarmists and the second is a link to the essay.


http://jjthefisherman.newsvine.com/_news/2011/07/21/7126988-environmental-profiteers-ocean-in-peril

http://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/oceans-of-abundance.pdf

Also, something else to consider: In BC, the Dept of Fisheries and Oceans {DFO} have implementing a "catch share" program for halibut. The idea being that sport fishers and commercials could each have shares. The idea got tossed in favor of money, however. The original plan was to give a 50/50 share but then commercials lobbied for larger share allowances and the past two years, they got 88% of shares.

 The interesting part is they are given their shares by the DFO for free. But, due to super-stupid high lisencing costs, escalading fuel costs, extreme insurance rates, and that make more money selling off their shares, many commercials do not fish anymore. They maintain what they need to in order to get those shares. Then, they sell the shares, in smaller quanities, to charters. In short, they do not need the shares, do not use the shares and profit from them.

 Now, if the same plans were put to test in the US market and the commercials discover they make more money by legally selling their shares than if they actually fished them, we sportfishers will have to pay to fish.

 I am all for conservation. But there must be more logical and fair methods available to us. Catch shares are not the answer.


----------



## RBM (Sep 18, 2011)

Lukikus2 said:
			
		

> Like Walmart do Ya'



Never said I like Wally World but I do shop there out of necessity, not because I want to. No I don't like privatization of a public resource (namely public state fisheries) and it should be illegal (unlawful) in any event. Many state laws prohibit any such privatization of public resources. Walton family or not. I did say before that boycotts against Wally World are useless because it is such a diversified huge corporation that can take losses and that still goes.



			
				Walton Family Foundation gives millions to ocean privatization efforts
by Dan Bacher  said:
			
		

> "A catch share, also known as an individual fishing quota, is a transferable voucher that gives individuals or businesses the ability to access a fixed percentage of the total authorized catch of a particular species," according to Food and Water Watch. "Fishery management systems based on catch shares turn a public resource into private property and have lead to socioeconomic and environmental problems. Contrary to arguments by catch share proponents – namely large commercial fishing interests – this management system has exacerbated unsustainable fishing practices."



This would violate most state laws governing public fisheries since it denies "public" access. A "share" or fixed percentage of any kind by its very nature is private, not public or "open" to access. No wonder the quote says it is an unsustainable fishing practice.


----------



## LawnStalker (Sep 18, 2011)

Would a series of "shop in"s work better than a boycott whose effects on the bottom line won't reach the board until the end of the quarter?

I mean instead of not shopping at walmart perhaps that if all we sportsmen should do- shop there, perhaps load our buggies down with what we would have normally bought there and buy em and promptly get in the customer service line to return them making a point to show the manager the loss this decision is costing the company. Even better if we could expand the protest a little wider and include those less hard core in the efforts - imagine your PTA peers or a church load of folks shopping and returning a buggy full on the same day with the same complaint. All the effort of the restock, cashiers, and aggravated other customers taking their toll on the local store. Just not doing business with them isn't as effective as precisely outlining what they loss do to this effort, and if we keep it up -what they will lose again this coming Christmas season. Just be careful not to buy non-returnables like firearms and ammo unless you plan on keeping 'em. I would also stay away from frozen foods as well just to play fair.

I can already hear some of us, "too much time and effort"? Then there is the option of instead of the normal buggy-full of stuff selecting specific big ticket items so it costs you only ten minutes of buggy filling instead of the normal routine. The point is local walmarts can be reached and encouraged to carry our message to corporate with the impact of numbers supporting our case. 
Boycotts work but slowly. This might be quick enough to change things before "hope and change" falls for the sad, sad story and makes another mistake.


----------



## RBM (Sep 18, 2011)

LawnStalker said:
			
		

> "shop in"s shop there, perhaps load our buggies down with what we would have normally bought there and buy em and promptly get in the customer service line to return them making a point to show the manager the loss this decision is costing the company. load of folks shopping and returning a buggy full on the same day with the same complaint. All the effort of the restock, cashiers, and aggravated other customers taking their toll on the local store.



A load of returns would just back up the stock and put a larger work burden on the peon workers that don't make any money to begin with. The discrepancy in back-upped stock would be adjusted after a while anyway. Not a big deal. Management could care less. The workers would pay the price, not management or the store. If you want to make a difference, then make your statement to the Walton family in writing, not the stores. It is the Walton family that has made this decision.


----------

