phade

Operating costs for a retail center are extremely high - each sq/ft costs X amount to run. That's a fact. It's significant. Heat, electricity, insurance premium, maintenance/upkeep, A/C, plumbing...fixtures...you name it, it costs money. Profit margins for retail are super small - low single digits. Why? Because it costs alot of money to run a brick and mortar retail space. Retail is successful by limiting capital expenditures and increasing sales - which is done by sq/ft in the industry. Then once you realize that that space isn't selling inventory 365 days a year, get back to me on the "cost."

Big difference between local joe's archery shop and Gander Mountain. I doubt Joe has shareholders, nor mega banks backing their loans. Nor does he keep track of sales per sq/ft or foot trafic data. Really this is a very simple math problem for any store of size/volume. Different perspective for small shop who is trying to drum up business on a small scale. He's also clearing out his lanes for dual purpose. His opportunity cost is smaller because of the fact that he's simply just not generating revenue on the lanes. I suspect he'd think twice if he had a room set up solely for classes 10-15x a year and had to pay heat, rent, maintenance, etc. on that room. This is the case at GM. The room isn't being used for anything else other than classes...so when it is not packed full with people (which its not 9 of 10 days), it's not only not generating a profit, but costing them money as well, on a much bigger scale. A store that size generates around $150-$190 per sq/ft (Dick's is $187 give or take). Say the classroom is 25'x25'... that's 625 sq/ft. Let's assume they hit $175 sq/ft. That's $110k in revenue generation. Say they have one class per week at 20 students (being generous as they don't have 52 classes a year there for hunter's ed)...52x20 = 1,040 students. See where this is going? Now let's assume it costs around $30k to operate that room...so that room would need to generate about $140k in a fiscal year from those 1,040 students. Do you think you are going to get $135 per student? Nope. Now, in reality, they probably only do 1-2 classes per month. So, make that amount $270 per student. You can continue to add in other factors and the amounts go up up and up. Math shows their decision to nix the classes are financially smart.

KPI = Key Performance Indicator I think the archery lanes is more a casualty of the insurance in all honesty. Small shops can get away with it because they generally have policies that are lower risk due to exposure/potential limits. Bigger stores like GM, BPS, Cabelas have larger footprints, more risk exposure, and higher ceilings. Local Joe's archery shop might get sued for $1M, GM might get sued for 5 or 10, for the same situation. Cabelas and BPS and F&S have lanes, but they're graded much higher than GM. GM is private and trying to be spun to turn a profit for resale or going public. I suspect GM has a higher operating cost due to their ratings for loans, insurance, etc. That makes archery lanes more costly from a risk perspective.

That's precisely the problem. A minimal revenue generating draw is not wanted. Take that space and throw a fish tank in there with some fishing poles or a mount wall with some hunting gear. That's much more of a draw/profit for the same space.

We would all like to see Gander Mtn continue to open up its doors to training classes. Problem is, its financially a loser. Given the state of affairs of the store as noted, its makes perfect sense to try to maxmize revenue generation. Giving coupons or getting goodwill from the new hunters a few times a year will in no way shape or form offset a measurable and known revenue projection/realiztion given that space is holding inventory for sale every day. At the end of the day, there are people that are accountable for their kingdoms. This is a pretty clear-cut business decision. Now, should there happen to be a giant uproar with negative publicity (ie press, picket signs, petitions, etc.), then you can start to get into risk management via reputational risk.

I think what he is getting at is when people have said not being able to hunt bucks would change participation, some of them had comments made/high horse views. I concur with that. We want the choice to shoot any and all bucks (legally), but yet if we can't shoot any buck, its not OK for people reduce or change participation or interest levels. At least that's my POV. I find that flawed. I don't think we should force what is a trophy to anyone. If they want to shoot a spike and are happy - I am happy fo them. If they want to shoot a doe, I am happy for them. If they don't want to hunt as much because of removing a major component of deer hunting, I am happy for them.

What they are actually saying is that hosting the classes costs them money and sacrifices profits. It certainly costs Gander Mountain. The most common KPI for a retail store is sales per sq/ft. Factor in the opportunity cost, the facitlities costs, maintenance, upkeep, etc. for a common area...and then try to tell the manager that his performance goals were not met when they might have easily been met if that 5-10% of non-revenue producing footage had been converted into what it should be...revenue generating space. Sure, you might get some goodwill, but not enough to offset, not even close. I think its nothing but a smart decision for them to nix that. Let them focus on doing what they do best (relatively speaking)....retail. The DEC should be responsible for this in my mind.

Supply and demand.

Grow you take things way too seriously.Taking back apologies? What are we, 5? No need for an apology anyway. I feel sorry if one thinks that removing one of if not the biggest challenges in whitetail hunting were removed that hunters wouldnt change their behavior. Pretty clear hunting is a sport where the participant can make up their own mind as to the personal limits of their game, within the law/common decency. Hit a nerve? No, just funny to think that people are shocked that removing a major challenge wouldnt change participation. Thats some major sticking head in sand there.

Without a doubt...id spend less time hunting deer. As much as i love bow, id probably be a gun only hunter to shoot a doe or two for meat and maybe a deer drive. Id most certainly not spend the kind of money and time i do now. Id fins other pursuits that are more rewarding. If people find this thread eye opening, i feel sorry for them. Weve went round and round that hunting means different things to each person. No need to get on a high horse in this thread. At all.

I'm surprised none of the high horses haven't said you should be ticketed for wanton waste yet, too. If vension alone, I'd try it. If fat mixed...nope.

AR to protect 2.5s now? Sheesh.

From a hunter perspective, yes. We view the rut more as a "what do hunters see" thing rather than the biological version of it. Poor weather conditions can drive more nighttime activity.

390 OK between Rush and Jefferson.

And, we're finally there. Name calling. Took us more pages than I thought.

I wouldn't blame the factory for that break-up. His skull probably helped. The stock on that gun is the only thing I don't like about the 220. Throwing a Boyds on there is the ticket.

This isn't Pittsford. It's Bethany. Ever been there? We're talking about a geographical area where archery is part of the PE classes. The kids push will only make this more likely it'll take place. Very smart move.

You are overestimating the general public understanding of bowhunting. They don't care - bowhunting will either be "safe" or "unsafe" to them based on the idea, not the reality, and nothing will change that in getting the hunt actually started. Likewise, nothing gets crap done faster than saying "it's for the kids." Or "it's for the disabled vets." This is a well-thought out effort to get the deer shot as needed due to over-population. Whoever is leading this effort should be running for a better office, their talents are being wasted in a small-scale situation. My town doesn't have a stoplight, nor a sewer system. It has a $2 million dollar athletic field at the high school. How do you think that got funded and green-lighted? "It's for the kids." That's how.

I don't think we as a group will ever be happy. That's my answer. We can't identify what the future state should look like with any degree of confidence or large scale support because of US, the hunters. That's the lowest hole in the bucket. And water is continuing to pee out of it. So no, we won't ever get there. We're never happy. We can't even agree on the research method to try to figure out what would make us happy to even design a future state, let alone the execution part of it down the road.

Let's not knock them down about the youth component yet. Makes sense, but I agree, they're probably trying to sell to the masses. Good for them actually trying to use a resource. I suspect they could do a paid lottery and have alot of submissions. I know I would submit...that first year of hunting would be great. I'm sure there are plenty of bucks aged through the classes there. I am sure there are also landowners/hunters bordering that are cringing at the thought of this.

And hiring Cornell doesn't bring any level of credibility to this process? Maybe, and I'm speaking on a guess (I have no idea), they actually want Cornell to do this to bring some credibility to the process? I suspect the same section of hunting public wouldn't kick their Cornell educated surgeon out of the operating room, or would plant their apples or grapes designed there, or stand inside a Cornell engineer's building. Hunters have proven they're one of the most disfunctional communities of people with a commonality in America. It's not just the government they can't get along with or trust. QDMA, Deer farmer groups, NYBH, NYSCC and so on and so forth. What deer- or hunting based group (private, NFP, or public agency) has any sort of large-scale support from the hunting community at large? None. Well, maybe Catch A Dream, I guess. But, none that does anything with management of the resources. So, where does that leave us? Wherever it is, it ain't good. This thread is a sad commentary on the deer hunting community from all perspectives, mine included.

Let me pose this question: Do you honestly believe Cornell doesn't have a clear, scientifically accepted reason as to why it runs the survey the way it does? Let me also pose, what can you show that Cornell's methods necessitates questionable numbers of data points? It's like people know everything about everything. "Hey, Mr. Ivy League world-class statistician, you are doing it wrong." "What am I doing wrong?" "You have questionable methodology on everything you do." "Ok, how do you know this?" "I slept at a Holiday Inn last night." It's certainly not blind trust, and that dose of slepticism is fine, but there should be reasonable confidence that a world class instituion can do a job right on something such as this.

The opportunity cost for a few seconds per license is alot bigger than you would think from a retailer. Realistically its probably more like a few minutes as people think or respond. I have nothing to go on other than my experience but theyd be asking for millions in increased cut percentage. They probably get two or three percent, and theyd likely want 5 to 7 percent...multiply that by a half million licenses give or take. I agree with more everything but at the end of the day the law of diminishing return become fiscally required to implement. Spend less than a million for Cornell to do this with precision or milions upon millions to get little gain. As much as people think Cornell couldnt come up with the same data a full required survey would, i disagree. A small statistical survey run correctly is shown to be the right path in nearly every aspect of life. Heck, my dept. samples 3 percent or less and we get a 99.98 percent accuracy rate in transaction projections...and this is with peoples health insurance on the line. making everyone feel involved is nice, but at the end of the day, i dont think a fiscally responsible way can be done that at the same time provide some increased and measurable benfit over the way most survey methodology results are derived. Especially by a leading authority on it. Remember at the end of the day, were talking just about deer hunting. we cant even include this level of survey methodology in anything we do on things that are way more important. Why? Because it doesnt make sense from any angle other than people "feeling good".

I have to assume if they go OBR, that the DMP/Antlerless would merge into one. I think most all OBRs do that now. Ohio manages by zone, and seems pretty efficient.

Probably the most impactful insight you've had to date on this forum. All of it is 100% factual in my view. Kodak, nothing like holding the keys to the kingdom, and then letting it all disappear because of not wanting to cut into film profits. I mean, it's not like they didn't have the patent on the digital camera or anything. Kodak refused to change when it had in hand its future secured and it died (figuratively speaking). I think 5 is the worst option. Do nothing and continue to wilt away.