So what do you guys think of this? For those of you not aware, Sarah Bowmar filmed her husband legally take a bear with a spear in Alberta. There was a huge outcry by the anti hunters, and now Under Armour (sponsored Sarah, not hubby) has taken a side on this and dropped her. They didn't feel it was ethical. I think we are gonna find out real quick from some big names in the Outdoors industry on which side they stand when it comes to chasing the money vs. defending legal hunting. I watched the hunting video on youtube today. It's nothing different than we have seen before from the likes of Tim Wells, etc. Just a guy killing a bear from the ground with a spear. Your thoughts?
Great minds think alike. Was going to text you and say someone should write an article on this one. I'm guessing you'll get more love notes from the anti's on this one. Hah.
I was never a fan of fluorescent green anyway. At least, not since my last pair of fat laces and parachute pants... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
All the reason for me to stick with my Sitka gear. Never liked the fit of UA anyways... Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
Wonder what Cameron Haynes will say about it? He was pretty vocal about the Cecil thing. If he's a man of his word, like he seems to be, wonder if he will drop the UA? They were just on his podcast talking about all of the hunting and the anti stuff......
I'm most interested to see how the rest of the UA sponsored hunters respond. They work with some of the most prominent and visible faces in the hunting industry. Will they all stand aside and say nothing about this? Eva Shockey sells shirts that say "Never Apologize For Being A Hunter". Will she stand quietly aside and let UA and the anti-hunting community beat one of her friends down for being a hunter? Does that UA check mean more than truly supporting our rights as hunters? This should get interesting. On a side note, I was always a bit shocked that UA charged as hard as they did into the hunting market considering the potential backlash from anti-hunters. Admittedly I was impressed and admired the fact that they didn't let that stop them. However the very first time their feet are held to the fire and they are given an opportunity to stand up for someone being unfairly treated by anti-hunters and the media at large they cave in without a second thought. What happens when some anti-hunting group goes after Jim Shockey for spending 100K to shoot some rare species of animal in some place we've never heard of? Will UA buckle and drop him as well?
Yes. However some idiot politician is now saying their going to outlaw hunting with a spear because of this.
I recently have purchased some UA gear and now will no longer buy their products unless they provide some valid reasons for dropping their sponsorship. The negative press for me is not enough to drop the sponsorship and think it proves more they won't back a hunter doing nothing wrong if there is negative attention associated with their product.
Under Armour is only interested in their bottom line. If revenues from hunting gear made up the majority of their income they wouldn't have blinked an eye. I have always avoided UA because I think they are overpriced and over hyped.
I have a little hook up with Under Armour and have purchased a bunch of their stuff over the past two years. Otherwise I couldn't really afford it. As to UA getting backlash and then dropping a person they sponsored due to pressure, they did the same thing with the police. After the whole Ferguson deal I noticed they removed the police discount on some of their gear. In fact they removed the word "police" altogether when giving 1st responder discounts. So I wrote them and asked them why they removed the word "police" when listing persons eligible for 1st responder discounts.....they wrote back and stated that cops still get 1st responder discounts (not that I need handouts, just a matter of integrity). They didn't answer my question as to why they dropped "police" in their description of 1st responders. I didn't need an answer, I already knew why they did it.......catering to a bunch of weenies.
This is a shame. I don't have the time or words to explain how this makes me feel. I'm just glad my newest hunting gear is Sitka.
Sponsorship is supposed to be a win win for both the company and the individual sponsored. Don't do anything that makes that arrangement no longer mutually beneficial. As long as no contracts were illegally breached no problem
