|
sidepull
Apr 6, 2006, 10:34 PM
Post #1 of 33
(3505 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
Just curious - does anyone know of any outdoor companies that have totally violated their espoused missions and in the process the trust of the climbing community?
For example (this is fictional), imagine if you found out that Patagonia was actually polluting more than Walmart, they've just been covering it up for years. Any examples real examples?
|
|
|
|
|
mtmountaineer
Apr 6, 2006, 10:42 PM
Post #2 of 33
(3505 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 3, 2004
Posts: 18
|
Just curious-is there nothing better to do today in buttfuck nowhere than sit on rc.com and postulate pointless, meaningless posts?
|
|
|
|
|
cintune
Apr 6, 2006, 10:47 PM
Post #3 of 33
(3505 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1293
|
There are some people who criticize BD, Patagonia, Camelback, Arc'Tyrx and others for selling their goods to the military "war machine." Is that what you're getting at?
|
|
|
|
|
veganboyjosh
Apr 6, 2006, 10:53 PM
Post #4 of 33
(3505 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 22, 2003
Posts: 1421
|
In reply to: Just curious-is there nothing better to do today in f--- nowhere than sit on rc.com and postulate pointless, meaningless posts?
heh. you bumped it back to the front page, tough guy.
|
|
|
|
|
sidepull
Apr 6, 2006, 11:23 PM
Post #5 of 33
(3505 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
mmountaineer - it's amazing that you've posted a total of 12 times in two years and somehow this post compelled a response. Go back to lurking or provide some logic as to why this topic is less viable than any other. Also, I'm asking because I'm genuinely interested not bored.
cintune - those could be good examples. say more.
I'm just looking for examples where either employees or customers felt really violated, as though the company had desecrated principles that they had really touted as being important.
|
|
|
|
|
zozo
Apr 6, 2006, 11:32 PM
Post #6 of 33
(3505 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2004
Posts: 3431
|
I usually have to shake out like 15 inserts from every copy of Backpacker magazine I happen to buy. Always found that to be at least alittle hypocritical.
|
|
|
|
|
tradmanclimbs
Apr 6, 2006, 11:42 PM
Post #7 of 33
(3505 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2003
Posts: 2599
|
Most of the companys sell out when they get big. CCH stayed small and has been critisized for not selling out. catch 22.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tattooed_climber
Apr 7, 2006, 1:49 AM
Post #9 of 33
(3505 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2003
Posts: 4838
|
i KNOW that arc'teryx designed a special backpack for the US Navy SEALs or some thing along those lines
the thing that gets me about arc'teryx (first off the back, they're a local company to me, and i've been on their factory floor before and talked to their staff/designers/reps)..their local so i support them, and i love their gear...
but Arc'teryx was started 10 or 12 years ago by ex-MEC employees who wanted to creat BETTER climbing gear...anyone remember the days of gear slings, daisies, aiders, runners, etc?...like TNF, they've gone from a climbing market to selling alpine wear to puffter urban folk....i could go on....i've talked to them, they have no intention (at least 2 years ago,) of going anywhere else with their harness line
not exactly a scandle, neither is the whole "war machine" BS....thats just ethics.....yates and Fish makes military stuff, lets nail them to the cross too, eh? :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
jimdavis
Apr 7, 2006, 2:37 AM
Post #10 of 33
(3505 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 1935
|
In reply to: There are some people who criticize BD, Patagonia, Camelback, Arc'Tyrx and others for selling their goods to the military "war machine." Is that what you're getting at?
I find it interesting how people critisize Patagonia for selling to a "war machine" when they ran full page adds saying "VOTE THE ENVIRONMENT" in 2004....which obviouslly wasn't promoting the Bush "war machine".
For me, I rank customer service way above politics when I choose who to buy from. After all, if I only bought from companies that side with my personal political views, my gear closet would be pretty empty.
Cheers,
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
findingit
Apr 7, 2006, 2:54 AM
Post #11 of 33
(3505 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 6, 2003
Posts: 155
|
In reply to: In reply to: There are some people who criticize BD, Patagonia, Camelback, Arc'Tyrx and others for selling their goods to the military "war machine." Is that what you're getting at? I find it interesting how you seemingly critisize Patagonia for selling to a "war machine" when they ran full page adds saying "VOTE THE ENVIRONMENT" in 2004....which obviouslly wasn't promoting the Bush "war machine". For me, I rank customer service way above politics when I choose who to buy from. After all, if I only bought from companies that side with my personal political views, my gear closet would be pretty empty. Cheers, Jim
clearly cintune did not criticize (seemingly or otherwise) anyone in that post.....
but if you're looking for ethical gear purchases (at least at a distributor level) MEC would be your best bet IMHO. Inherently it's all unethical depending on how deep you want to go.....everything requires ridiculous amounts of energy to get to your front door.
But that doesn't mean you should stop trying......
cheers
clint.
|
|
|
|
|
cintune
Apr 7, 2006, 3:03 AM
Post #12 of 33
(3505 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1293
|
In reply to: I find it interesting how you seemingly critisize Patagonia for selling to a "war machine" when they ran full page adds saying "VOTE THE ENVIRONMENT" in 2004....which obviouslly wasn't promoting the Bush "war machine".
Sorry it came across that way. I have no problem at all with companies selling their stuff to the military. I was just trying to respond to the original post, which was purely hypothetical, with something I had come across on the Getoutdoors blog. In my opinion troops in the field deserve the best gear they can get, from wherever they can get it. When I wrote "some people" I was just trying for a diplomatic way of saying "surrender monkeys." So much for diplomacy.
|
|
|
|
|
mattyp
Apr 7, 2006, 3:26 AM
Post #13 of 33
(3505 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 5, 2003
Posts: 162
|
The military deserves to have the best equipment out there. If that is made by outdoor companies(and it usually is) then why would there be a problem for the companies to sell to the military? The profit they make from those sales better enables them to research and develop new products. If your son/brother/husband/dad/best friend was there wouldn't you want them to have good equipment to rely on? or some crappy lowest bidder stuff that falls apart at an inopportune moment? I've been there and done that. Most of the stuff I used in Afghanistan was personal equipment because the standard issue stuff was too heavy, broke too easily, or just plain didn't cut the mustard. That's my two cents.
I realize this isn't really on topic, but the issue really bugs me, especially negativity about what good men and women are accomplishing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Don't believe what you read and hear in the news. Ask a veteran what's happening over there, it is a much more accurate viewpoint. Sorry for stepping up on the soapbox here.
|
|
|
|
|
up_for_a_good_time
Apr 7, 2006, 3:36 AM
Post #14 of 33
(3505 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 111
|
well said, matty. sorry about the army-navy game this year...and the three before that. rock on.
|
|
|
|
|
climb_ca
Apr 7, 2006, 5:41 AM
Post #15 of 33
(3505 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 7, 2006
Posts: 5
|
How about this:
In reply to: REI, an outdoor industry leader, uses some recycled paper and promotes sustainable harvesting of forests (FSC certification), but they also use Endangered Forests while they play with the nasty industry certification standard, which does nothing to protect forests. They really should know better.
From REI Recycling Efforts Get Grade D+, also on the GetOutdoors Blog.
|
|
|
|
|
jimdavis
Apr 7, 2006, 6:19 AM
Post #16 of 33
(3505 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 1935
|
In reply to: In reply to: I find it interesting how you seemingly critisize Patagonia for selling to a "war machine" when they ran full page adds saying "VOTE THE ENVIRONMENT" in 2004....which obviouslly wasn't promoting the Bush "war machine". Sorry it came across that way. I have no problem at all with companies selling their stuff to the military. I was just trying to respond to the original post, which was purely hypothetical, with something I had come across on the Getoutdoors blog. In my opinion troops in the field deserve the best gear they can get, from wherever they can get it. When I wrote "some people" I was just trying for a diplomatic way of saying "surrender monkeys." So much for diplomacy.
No worries, my bad too! I agree with you about our troops deserving the best though! :D I thought I posted again to this thread already and said as much...guess it didn't go though. ahhhhh well.
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
mowz
Apr 7, 2006, 5:04 PM
Post #17 of 33
(3505 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 1495
|
As to the first person to respond to this thread, I do not believe that this is a wasted thread. The point of this whole forum is for climbers to get together and chat. The word "chat" includes everything to mindless drivel (most of what I start) to very serious concerns (CCH issue). This thread falls in between.
As far as this thread is concerned, I found it interesting. I'm a person who is intrigued by conspiracy theories and related subjects. For some reason, I have a big interest in the Skull and Bones subject. This shit is very cool.
To the OP, good thread.
|
|
|
|
|
mattm
Apr 7, 2006, 5:20 PM
Post #18 of 33
(3505 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2003
Posts: 640
|
In reply to: The military deserves to have the best equipment out there. If that is made by outdoor companies(and it usually is) then why would there be a problem for the companies to sell to the military? The profit they make from those sales better enables them to research and develop new products. If your son/brother/husband/dad/best friend was there wouldn't you want them to have good equipment to rely on? or some crappy lowest bidder stuff that falls apart at an inopportune moment? I've been there and done that. Most of the stuff I used in Afghanistan was personal equipment because the standard issue stuff was too heavy, broke too easily, or just plain didn't cut the mustard. That's my two cents. I realize this isn't really on topic, but the issue really bugs me, especially negativity about what good men and women are accomplishing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Don't believe what you read and hear in the news. Ask a veteran what's happening over there, it is a much more accurate viewpoint. Sorry for stepping up on the soapbox here.
I'll second this - Our troops deserve the best equipment they can get regardless of how people (including my self) feel about how the war is run and if it's just or not. Troops deserve the best. The people that make poor decisions with our troops do not.
|
|
|
|
|
roy_hinkley_jr
Apr 7, 2006, 5:33 PM
Post #19 of 33
(3505 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2005
Posts: 652
|
In reply to: Just curious - does anyone know of any outdoor companies that have totally violated their espoused missions and in the process the trust of the climbing community?
You mean like the editor of a national climbing magazine starting a bolt war? Or the same editor of a climbing magazine acting like a drunken fool and getting busted by the National Park Service for stupidity? Or the same editor (who was re-hired) recently trivializing the death of a great ski mountaineer?
|
|
|
|
|
pastprime
Apr 7, 2006, 5:53 PM
Post #20 of 33
(3505 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2005
Posts: 251
|
Not in the huge scandal category, but REI bugs me. They are supposed to be, and once were, a co-op for the benefit of the members. Now, though they talk as if they have a great environmental ethic, they are actively promoting consumerism, sending out tons of paper and ink in fliers encouraging people to buy new gear instead of using up the old stuff that is already filling their closets; and promoting jetting off to somewhere in a thousands of gallons per hour plane to have and ecological experience.
I've nothing against buying new gear when it's needed, or travel when it is desired; but don't be trying to talk more people into it if they aren't already planning on doing it.
|
|
|
|
|
mattyp
Apr 7, 2006, 6:13 PM
Post #21 of 33
(3505 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 5, 2003
Posts: 162
|
Thanks for the support!
|
|
|
|
|
dlclimber
Apr 7, 2006, 6:17 PM
Post #22 of 33
(3505 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 12, 2005
Posts: 9
|
Omega used ( still using?) prison labor as cheap labor.
|
|
|
|
|
cintune
Apr 7, 2006, 9:22 PM
Post #23 of 33
(3505 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1293
|
They don't do that anymore. Not that there was anything wrong with it.
|
|
|
|
|
wjca
Apr 7, 2006, 9:40 PM
Post #24 of 33
(3505 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 27, 2005
Posts: 7545
|
In reply to: Omega used ( still using?) prison labor as cheap labor.
So what? I'd rather see a bunch of convicts doing something useful and maybe developing some sort of skill rather than spend the day lifting weights in the "yard", gang raping other inmates and learning to be better criminals for when they get out.
|
|
|
|
|
crackbetty
Apr 7, 2006, 10:13 PM
Post #25 of 33
(3505 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 9, 2004
Posts: 2
|
I was frustrated with Alpinist's last issue. Beckwith used the entire editorial to showcase how "environmental" his publication is now, but he failed to mention that the magazine is printed in China and shipped back to the US. I'm sure that the amount of energy consumed in that process is significantly more than if they printed in-country. I don't necessarily oppose printing in China, but I didn't think Beckwith gave any kind of realistic view of Alpinist's impact on the environment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
