Lets get more Camelbak support.
Posted June 13, 2002 - 05:36 AM
Lets work to get them more on our side of the fence.
[ June 15, 2002: Message edited by: yamaha.dude ]
Posted June 13, 2002 - 07:32 AM
Anyway here are some links by riders about Camelbak and the myth about supporting greenies and not us.
Posted June 13, 2002 - 08:43 AM
When a company so large could be so petty as to risk one mans ability to make a living. They can eat crap and die.
Some of the members sent their Camelback back to them and some just ripped off their tags (no advertising). I will NEVER buy another CamelCrack product again.
Instead of asking them for support and to sponsor races, just ask them to quit sponsoring groups like the Sierra Club. Don't belive me? Send them an email and ask about their affiliations with "green" organizations....... hope you have your boots on.
If I wasn't a moderator, someone would have to moderate this post
I just went and searched. You may want to also, to see all the crap that went on.
[ June 13, 2002: Message edited by: Bill ]
Posted June 13, 2002 - 08:58 AM
Posted June 13, 2002 - 10:17 AM
Posted June 13, 2002 - 10:36 AM
Posted June 13, 2002 - 11:51 AM
I do totally agree with Bill on the matter of Camelback contacting the employer of an individual. Cowardly chickensh*t. If someone makes a libelous statement, you sue them for libel. If not, then STFU.
If you think that I am affiliated with any green org, Camelback, or anything that would put me at odds with the interests of dirt biking, do a search for posts by me. You will probably gather that I am one of the most vehemently anti-government, anti-socialist, anti-green, ready-to-wage-unlimited-electronic-information-warfare MF'r on TT.
Posted June 13, 2002 - 12:28 PM
Originally posted by jschner:
...Lets work to get them more on our side of the fence.
Well, this is a pretty refreshing perspective. We seemed to have heard an awful lot of complaining about what some companies are doing or not doing and how we should not support them by purchasing their products. Maybe we should direct more of our energy at getting some companies to do more for our sport and then reward them with our buying power when they do.
But why choose Camelbak to carry our torch? At best they seem only bipartisan in their politics and really just trying to sell a product for their own profit. And their product is not even really one that is exclusive to our sport.
What about all the bike manufactures and other third party vendors in the dirtbiking industry? Are they 100% with us? What will they commit to ensure the survival of their industry? Or will they just mold their plastic into some other products when dirtbikers aren't around to buy their fenders? And if they do support our cause, how do we know that they aren't really just protecting their own business interests?
Well, Camelbak has already found themselves in the middle of this thing (probably more indicative of their PR blunders then any real political motivation). Since their product is not really OHV specific, their position could be viewed as at least not completely self preserving if they decided to actively support responsible access for OHV. And with all of the rumors and bad feelings that have been tossed around about them in OHV discussions, a genuine pro-OHV action on their part would certainly get noticed.
I like it.
Posted June 13, 2002 - 12:51 PM
business community, recently announced it will launch Businesses for Wilderness
(B4W). Businesses for Wilderness was initiated in collaboration with the Pew
Charitable Trusts and is being supported with a $1 million grant from the
The coalition will be the first project of the newly formed Outdoor
Recreation Foundation. The initiative has three specific goals: "to protect
currently unprotected roadless areas on federal lands, shift the management and
budgetary focus of federal public lands toward protecting natural resources, and
to educate the public and policy makers on the benefits of outdoor recreation."
The Pew Charitable Trusts has long been regarded as one of the nation's
leading advocates for locking out motorized recreation on public lands. Pew's
support of the B4W will not only enable ORCA to expand its role in closing
publicly owned areas, but also, enable ORCA to execute regional and local
campaigns. This grant reaffirms the agenda of Pew's anti-access agenda and takes
the deceptive campaign to a new level.
Sally McCoy, chairperson of the ORCA Board and president of Sierra Designs,
Bill Meadows, president of The Wilderness Society and Sky George, vice president
of marketing for CamelBak and a member of the ORCA board have all publicly
[/list] here is link where you can find all info you need"the proof"
[ June 13, 2002: Message edited by: freestyle111 ]
Posted June 13, 2002 - 01:10 PM
Posted June 13, 2002 - 03:00 PM
Originally posted by freestyle111:
here is your proof
Sky George, vice president of marketing for CamelBak and a member of the ORCA board
Is this the connection we were supposed to find?
If so, thanks Freestyle. That is the most solid thing I've seen on this issue and I will continue recommending against Camelback.
Does anybody know anything about the retailer REI? I have friends that buy stuff there. I really suspect that organization would be very green but I don't know.
Posted June 13, 2002 - 03:28 PM
Posted June 13, 2002 - 09:17 PM
No I don't work for Camelbak or have anything to do with them except I just purchased one of their products a few months ago.
I personally think Camelbak makes some pretty good hydration systems. So before I bought one I did a good search on the net to try to figure out what was going on. After looking and inquiring for a few weeks and reading all the hype I didn't find one shred of hard evidence Camelbak the company has given any money to any organzation except that they advertised in a magazine and they have an employee that is pro-enviroment.
During the search I found the links I posted plus a few more and I have seen yours before as well. But to me all it really says is where the wacko "Sky" works not that Camelbak actually supports PEW, ORCA or B4W.
With the products Camelbak manufactures like "military" and "motorsports" products I bet they have pro employees for our causes too. Just not as vocal as bark sniffer "SKY". I bet they have a few more like "SKY" as well.
OTOH, hand Camelbak supports our causes indirectly through advertising and now sponsorships. My only purpose for this thread was to try to get more of Camelbak's indirect support.
If you still think we don't need their support then that's fine. I can give a rats behind if they go out of business even though I like their products. But I know you would agree they have a fine product and every advertising dollar spent on our side is one less dollar spent in any other market they may have that my not be on our side. If we get more of their dollars we win two fold. If we don't we lose two fold.
neW. - I agree with you. We can do a lot of work in a lot of areas. But when I saw the Camelbak survey on their site mentioning dirtbike friendly magazines I thought this was too easy with results that we could possibly see within a few months.
Posted June 13, 2002 - 10:16 PM
[ June 14, 2002: Message edited by: freestyle111 ]
Posted June 13, 2002 - 10:39 PM
I actually don't consider it so much a freedom to speak out about and fight for what you believe, I consider it more of a responsibility. With that comes the assumption that you do your homework. Comparing a product you've tried to one you haven't is not much of a basis for a fair evaluation (although I do appreciate that you can recommend what you believe is a quality product as an alternative).
Also, driving through a retailers parking lot is hardly an informed position from which to classify them as "green" or "smells green". Put on a clean shirt and go inside to check it out before you pass judgement. Being affluent and driving expensive SUV's doesn't necessarily make people greenies. Not that I know anything at all about REI's politics. Come to think of it, I don't know anything at all about "sportmart" politics either.
Posted June 13, 2002 - 10:42 PM