Hypocrisy?

7491 Views 29 Replies 20 Participants Last post by GooseBuster3, Jul 13, 2003

Dave Brandt

Discussion Starter · Jul 1, 2003

Is it just me or does anyone else see the hypocrisy of pissing and moaning about guides and outfitters and becoming like Texas and then having advertisements for commercial entities at the top of this website? I would say it decreases the validity of the discussions here. Maybe there should be advertisements for those hunting and fishing related businesses (unlike Scheels) that stand behind those of us who don't want our sport to end up going to the highest bidder. I know of some individuals and businesses which have taken a lot of heat and/or lost business by fighting the good fight, and I think we should support them for that. At the very least I think this is the last place there should be advertisements for guides and outfitters.

1 - 20 of 30 Posts

Dan Bueide

· #2 · Jul 1, 2003

Easy Dave, I'm not a huge fan of the ads either, but neither do I consider it blasphemy or a signal that Chris has sold his sole to the devil. Through the ads and the limited paid members, Chris is probably up to something like a whopping $.07/hr for the time he's put into this site, not to mention his out of pocket expenses. Think of it as a motivational tool

Here's Chris' explanation:

I'm testing out a new ad campaign that google is offering. It seemed like a great deal and I was able to get in right away. It will generate advertisements by random based on the content on the page. Since there's a few outfitters who choose hunting and fishing as keywords, they will show up periodically.

I think it could be the most effective advertising I've ever seen yet, and I'm glad to have it on the site. I have turned down alot of advertising from ND outfitters and has left some advertising void for quite awhile. It just wouldn't be right.

By the way, please click on the links from time to time as I get paid for every click. It really helps with site expenses.

********

I think we need to cut Chris a little slack on this one. Heck, without him, we'd have to try and solve all the world's problems on censorbuddy.com

See less See more

Qwack

· #3 · Jul 2, 2003

I would be much happier if Chris would replace the outfitter ads with streaming pictures of super models in bikinis :beer:

gandergrinder

· #4 · Jul 2, 2003

The add doesn't force anyone to use a guide. That is a decision we all make on our own.
What that add does at the top of the page is give us all a chance to discuss, vent, and organize all of our thoughts.
It gives us a chance to meet new people, build friendships and join a little group of people who all have a common interest in the outdoors. Every bit of that is all FREE. So if that means that I have to look at an add at the top of the page once and awhile. I think that it is a pretty small payment for what is available here.

Miller

· #5 · Jul 2, 2003

Dan Bueide said:
I have turned down alot of advertising from ND outfitters and has left some advertising void for quite awhile. It just wouldn't be right.

That should say it all. Think about every N. & S. Dakota publication of any kind and there's local outfitters. It's nice not seeing that here. I've been clicking some of ads and all I've seen is SD fishing and they can't lease the water.

The nice thing is that I don't have to scroll past 4 advertisments like other sites on every topic.

Nodak Outdoors is the number one site to me.

MRN

· #6 · Jul 2, 2003

Dave,

I agree - it seemed a little wierd to see those up there, but if you cast it as the outfitters helping to pay for the site that doesn't actually support them, then its a little easier to handle.

However, what if PETA wanted to pay $$ put up an ad? My guess is that the loss of control over those 5 or 6 square inches of space wouldn't be worth that much $$$????

M.

stevepike

· #7 · Jul 2, 2003

I don't see it as being hypocritical. Just because it appears on a page where someone puts a post that they do not like guides, the next post could say they are all for them.
I think it is great there is a site like this and whatever my feelings about guides, they are helping to keep the site running. Now if there were a PETA add on here, that would be a different story...

Dick Monson

· #8 · Jul 3, 2003

I like the idea of the ads. Getting outfitters to pay for this site is great! Dig the hole a little deeper. Chris is stalwart for the cause, more power to him.

The true hipocrispy is of course the governor's actions. He throws out the waterfowl plans that he told NDGF to develope, after telling resident hunters that he got the message from PHEASANTGATE. Then Hoeven sends NDGF out with a plan that they did not develope and did not support. Then Hoeven puts a gag order on NDGF so the boys that are the professionals cannot say a word without getting threatened or canned. Then he says it is their idea. Just like PHEASANTGATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We should change the name of the state from North Dakota to North Korea.

Qwack

· #9 · Jul 3, 2003

We should change the name of the state from North Dakota to North Korea.

bioman

· #10 · Jul 3, 2003

I am the epitome of hypocrisy. I have posted my opinion around 200 times as a guest to this site with no real regard to the freedom of censure that Chris has allowed. It finally took a $25 donation to the Delta Adopt-A-Pothole program and Chris (being very kind and gracious) threw in a "free membership" to entice additional donations. So what I am trying to say is that any guest of this site that has ever voiced their opinion without being censured is a hypocrite, and that includes yours truly!

economics 101

· #11 · Jul 3, 2003

stevepike

If the sight will take ads from G\O's and not PETA, that is hypocritical. Why take from one and not the other?? Both have money and both are supposedly against you 100%. ( Chris, don't freak out on this statement, we live in a free economic system and you have every right to take ad dollars from anyone you choose )

Dan B.,

Your example of .07 cents per hour is exactly why we in rural ND do not want any limits on our income either. You say it is all right for Chris to make money to pay expenses off of someone who is a G\O yet you want to limit the amount of income potential for rural ND.???? No one is demonizing Chris for wanting to not loose money, but during the debate this winter, rural ND was demonized and critisized for wanting to earn a living. Seems like its okay for your own benefit and no one elses. Hypocritical????????????

Miller,

Seems to me that its okay to send everyone to another state to hunt with G\O's so they are not in ND and then you all can have "your" state to yourselves. I am sure the Governor and G&F director will be interested in this thought process now showing its true colors.

I agree Chris is providing a valuable tool for this debate and should be thanked for such. But, it is hypocritcal to say its not ok to make money from hunting but it is okay to sell ads on this sight for those who make money from hunting ect.

Isn't it also foolish for the G\O's to be advertising on this sight? I am sure most on this sight will jump at the chance to use one of the services at the top of the pages.

See less See more

nodakoutdoors.com

· #12 · Jul 3, 2003

The ads are served up according to content dynamically. So considering this site is obviously about "hunting" and "fishing", it also happens that the G/O advertisers are targeting these words.

There is an advertiser filter, and I have already "blocked" a couple advertisers that are G/O's in the state. If you find any in ND, let me know. There aren't any advertising on this site.

So you can see how the advertisers change from one page to the next by these examples:

http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/salmon-recipe.html
http://www.leather-furniture.nodakoutdoors.com

I have passed on a lot of ND G/O advertisers already, and denying business isn't easy but it was my right to choose so and I stand by that. I told them they can certainly check out my competitors, as they will freely take their money.

With all the work being put into the new site upgrade coming in early August, I don't have time to seek out advertisers so the google dynamic advertising will be here to stay. If you want to go fishing in Michigan or dove hunting in Argentina, etc. feel free to check them out.

See less See more

Maverick

· #13 · Jul 3, 2003

E-101

Dan B.,

Your example of .07 cents per hour is exactly why we in rural ND do not want any limits on our income either. You say it is all right for Chris to make money to pay expenses off of someone who is a G\O yet you want to limit the amount of income potential for rural ND.???? No one is demonizing Chris for wanting to not loose money, but during the debate this winter, rural ND was demonized and critisized for wanting to earn a living. Seems like its okay for your own benefit and no one elses. Hypocritical????????????

Now you are comparing $.07/hr to millons of dollars.Also you are comparing one website to potentially 40,000 hunters. At this rate the common man in ND won't beable to afford hunting, actually he won't have the chances we used to have. because farmaer aren't making enough money?

I see your point but when I'm driving around to go fishing or even just to get out of town to see the country side I wonder how things are going for farmers when they are all driving new $40,000 trucks and doing field work in new $200,000 tractors or combines.

Personnally I 've owned 3 cars my life and they haven't totaled $40,000.

Mav....

redlabel

· #14 · Jul 4, 2003

It is a huge generalization and leaves a misconception when someone tries to portray all farmers as driving new $40,000 trucks and $200,000 tractors and combines.

If you would like to accompany me to, or attend a few farm auctions, you would come away with a different understanding. I could also give you directions to many farm sites that you won't see any new trucks or tractors on them. You'd see places that people are working damn hard to make a living.

ACE

· #15 · Jul 4, 2003

Talk about stereotyping!!!

1). What area of the state are you looking at, valley land farms, great grandpa's cash flow farms, or water world farms, where the ducks are truly being raised?

2). If you lived in the middle of water world, would you send your kid out in an unreliable vehicle, where there are far more ducks then people? Now add inclement winter weather with miles and miles between anywhere you want to go. How about taking a child or a baby out in it? What kind of a vehicle would you want?

3). Just how much is a city "truck" used for work compared to a "truck" on the farm (by the way, true "trucks" have more then four wheels and are generally used to haul crops!)

Over the past twenty years there has been four pickups, two cars and a minivan on this farm and all but one car is STILL on this farm and all are STILL working hard!

There are no $200,000 machines here.
Only good used twelve tire tractors and reliable 9600's.
Personally, I'd rather invest in land and oh yes, POST IT!!!

This truly is a "have and have not" world.

Apparently, you people need to put in some "farmer hours" (6 A.M. to midnight or sun up to sun down and then some!).

Until you do, you will continue to "have" time:
time to hunt, time for computer BS,
time to bash farmers and
time to bash the state of North Dakota.

On the other hand, farmers who manage their land, labor, capital, crops and time will continue to "have"..….... well, ….... you can all fill in the rest.

We all "have not" various things, that's life. It's all a matter of priorities and prerogatives.

Have a great INDEPENDENCE day!!!

Oh! By the way, the duck hatch is fantastic and there are several thousands of acres of barley!! :beer:

See less See more

Maverick

· #16 · Jul 4, 2003

My point was this, it's not just the farmers in this state that are needing more money, in fact the state has a ok economy, but for who? The people who have money. Now as a common man my self, If things keep up the way they are, I'm not going to beable to hunt, or lets refrase that, afford to hunt. That means more I won't beable to provide some more food for my family in the wintering months. Then

So now this thread has gone from Hypocritical to Stereotypical. Oh and by the way I have been to alot of those auctions you are talking about and alot of the ones i have been to were selling because of different reasons, for age to land access themselves. We will take the Gackle area again and you'll find that many famers in that area are leasing there and because they are getting more from leasing than putting a crop on it. The worst part about it is when the Outfitters will make extra income on that land, and will they give the extra cash (or even splitting some ) to the elder famers that they are renting from "NO" they keep all that money and make themselves richer, not the community!

Like I have said before, I grew up half in the city and half in Gackle ND,and come from a family that did farm for most their lives. So I do see all the small farms and all the new ones! I'm usually hunting on their lands, or fishing in there sloughs.

By the way I didn't mean to say all farmers are like that.....wrong wording on my part
but there are quit a few out there in that situation...

Mav....

:beer: Happy 4th to all.........

See less See more

Dakota Kid

· #17 · Jul 5, 2003

Chris,

I applaud your integrity and your logic in your decision to turn down G/O advertising $$. You can now sleep well at night knowing you did the right thing.

Strong work Smithers

f

redlabel

· #18 · Jul 5, 2003

The message meant to be portrayed by attending a farm auction was not to watch the sellers, but watch the buyers. You would notice that most of these people do not drive $40,000 trucks and are looking for machinery and tractors that are in a much more modest range than those suggested they all drive.

kkrapp

· #19 · Jul 6, 2003

What if the "elder" farmer would rather see his land hunted by customers of a good friend who happens to be an outfitter, rather than some strangers from town? He cares not of receiving a payment from the outfitter, despite the outfitter's offers, because he's getting free services of having the pesky ducks and geese which eat his crops removed. Hence everyone is happy except the complaining resident hunter who didnt bother nicely asking the landowner or the outfitter if he could hunt the land sometime.

Miller

· #20 · Jul 6, 2003

kkrapp said:
Hence everyone is happy except the complaining resident hunter who didnt bother nicely asking the landowner or the outfitter if he could hunt the land sometime.

That's right NO resident hunters ask for permission right? Nice stereotype there as well. Your argument is weak, as it was during the whole session.

1 - 20 of 30 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.