Dont own alot off ua hunting gear just some early season gloves witch I'm not fund of and a hat. I do like some of there casual stuff, manly under garments . They do have the right to hire and fire who they want. My understanding was this video was from spring. If it was so bad why weren't ties cut then. It looks bad that only after anti complained then it was bad and we have to do something. Haven't seen the hole video only a 4 min one when i did google search. Ua shouldn't of made it seem like it was a illegal hunt either. Red a article were the bowmars said they didn't receive a dime from ua. That they spent thousands of there own money on there gear. Not sure what type of sponsorship she had mybe price break on clothes. Then he wasn't even a sponsored hunter by them
Watch the outdoor channel. Every show shows a happy celebration after a kill. And Bowman's hunt was extremely hard and I can't imagine the adrenaline pumping from an on the ground hunt on a bear with no backup weapon. I see nothing wrong with this hunt or the celebration after.
So which is it, do you support the legal hunting industry or not? I was staying fairly neutral seeing it from both sides until I read this quote. The petition sent to UA asked them to drop the Bowmars because all of their videos in which they "showed a sickening pleasure in the suffering and death of the animals they hunted" In other words UA shouldn't be associated with any hunters and thus must drop the Bowmars, only using the spear hunt as a launch pad. UA had the opportunity to make a press release addressing the anti's concerns and pointing out that they were within legal means of harvest. This would have taken heat off the Bowmars and most heat off UA, especially from the hunting industry. PR dept. dropped the ball.
Cams Facebook post makes sense to me. This isn't black and white. On the bear kill I can care less if they used a spear, arrow, bullet or a big rock. Dead is dead. However you have to be an outright moron to go posting it on face book and then be upset at people's negative reaction to it. The if it's legal it's right mentality is a load of crap. furthermore the days of " I will show you and if you don't like it tough **** " are over. Like it or not Non hunters views of us effect us, and not taking that into consideration is plain shortsighted foolishness.
This 100%. We may want everyone to stop being whiners, and pc, and whatever else, but we also have to think that there are more non-hunters in the world than there are hunters. I find it funny how hypocritical some people are. Outraged because someone dropped a hunter for using a legal method that they felt was reckless. Stating that all hunters need to stick together, then in another thread bashing gun hunters, or someone who hunts high fence operations, or baiting, etc.
I feel like we gained a lot of anti's when being "country" became cool and a browning sticker or tattoo meant you were a huge hunter. They portray it wrong and thats when they got the wrong image. Now everything is messed up because they have a bad taste in their mouths about hunters already. But as the old saying goes "give them an inch, they'll take a mile" I hate to see how this progresses with the anti's complaining and then UA bending to make them happy. I do agree with trials post, we can't ignore the anti's because it effects us all.
I get what trial said about not black and white but what UA did is give the anti's fuel for the fire. If they would have not jumped on bashing the bomars and handled it a little more tackfully if could have been spun into a much better situation. IMO this hunt was much better then some bow or rifle hunts where idiots take marginal shots or use the wrong equipment. So for someone like the bomars to be bashed for something they dedicated themselves to perfecting before doing it and executing perfectly i think is really wrong. Whats stopping the antis from now saying bowhunting is too brutal or reckless if a marginal shot is takin and an animal suffers. And all kind of that crap is posted on the internet or social media.
I've set back and observed some things: #1 UA owed us nothing. They are a business, and rarely does a large business of their size do things based on right or wrong..but solely on fiscal reasoning. Let's face it, hunting never was a large piece of the pie over at UA...shoot I'd bet it was a sliver at best. Women's Golf attire probably out sells hunting stuff....shoot kid's tennis attire probably does. #2 WE owe UA nothing. They made a business decision...now hunters need to do that same exact thing. Sports attire, casual wear and hunting gear...all have offerings by other awesome companies USE THEM. Petitions, letters and social media keyboard warriors won't affect UA in the slightest. Their pocketbooks is the only language their execs will understand...it is said that the hunters of the US is one of the largest bodies of people (outside gun owners) that share a common thread. IF EVERY hunter refused to put any money into the pockets of UA in ANY fashion...they'd feel it. Or will we like society, blow hard but never follow through? #3 The hunt was awesome, EPIC and a tale to brag about for sure....however, did they think of the backlash from it before blasting it out there? I get it, the hunt was 100% legal...however when you are attempting to establish a brand, do you not have to at minimum ask yourself "Is this good for my brand?" Sorry but this wasn't thought out by the Bowmars at all...delivery of the tale even I think could have been edited together and made appear less "gruesome". Legal? Absolutely! Smart to release? Debatable at best! #4 I see a lot of fervor and anger...I just hope it is followed by resolute and resolve in the coming months...when we buy our kids or family's Christmas gifts, sports attire or casual wear...even if it is on sale.
I was at DSG yesterday and saw a kid buying a UA hunting pack. So I doubt UA will even notice a decline in their hunting sales, let alone anything else they offer.
The bigger issue I see is not how the bear was harvested, but the reaction. And I see much the same in many of the hunting shows on TV today. I've shot a few deer and had the heart racing and adrenaline flowing. But 1/2 the people start cheering like they won an Olympic Gold medal. To me that is what makes hunting of all types look bad in the eyes of non-hunters. It makes it look like thrill killing. If I was a sponsor company I would drop 1/2 the clowns today.
Sometimes I think there's so many details and nuances of these types of situations that we lose sight of the bigger picture. I agree with a lot of people in my feelings that the hunt didn't need to be portrayed the way it was, and their reaction wasn't something I particularly enjoyed. In fact, I watched a bunch of their hunts and can't say I particularly enjoyed any of them. But that's just me. If UA wanted to end their relationship with the Bowmars because their portrayal of hunting didn't align with UA's beliefs or what they wanted for their brand, more power to them. They certainly should have done that. And for all we know they may have been planning on doing so at some point in time. Unfortunately for them they didn't act quick enough. The bigger, and much more important, point is that UA chose to do nothing until the anti's and those who were offended started complaining. When you have a business the size of UA who is in the hunting industry we as hunters need them to stand up and support us when the anti's come with their pitchforks and torches. Instead of using their resources to help protect two of their own, they immediately cast them out and publicly said they were "reckless" and "dangerous". If that's not a slap in the face to two people who lived and breathed your brand for years I don't know what is. It's a shame that when given the opportunity to truly support hunters and hunting in the face of adversity, UA chose to back down. That, IMO, is why people are so upset. UA claims to support hunters and hunting however they showed they will only do so when it's convenient for them. As soon as the heat was cranked up they bailed out. To each their own when it comes to supporting them and purchasing their clothing in the future. I own some UA shorts and t-shirts and will continue to wear them. At this point they already got my money and I'm certainly not going to burn them like some people are doing. Heck, they're nice clothes! However when it comes time to make a decision in the future of what to buy, I'll most likely reach for something else.
Negative Justin...by their actions UA doesn't support hunters nor makes it seem they can "claim" so, if they ever truly did. It is must be our choice not to support them now however.
Only half? You're being way too nice. And I 100% mirror Justin's post. Even if they were close to splitting up, timing is everything. Now UA looks weak and the anti crowd has some momentum.
That's crap. Just because they don't support a certain type of hunting, means they don't support hunters? Whatever. I for one feel like the spear hunt was very reckless and dumb. Nothing more than an egotistical ****** trying to compensate for something to be honest. Also, on the spear hunting itself. I'm surprised it's still legal anyway. The chances of it going wrong are WAY higher than any other form of hunting. The spear had minimal penetration, and how many people can probably actually throw a spear accurately?
Justin, since you definitely deal with more sponsors than I do, me having none except my wife. What kind of contacts do you see? Are they yearly? What kind of clauses are there for this type of situation? I sure don't know what the deal between UA and Bowmar were. You say unfortunately they didn't act quick enough cutting ties with them, and also that they didn't do anything until anti-hunters showed up, and also a shame they didn't back the hunters. Probably a no win situation for UA. Cut the sponsorship off early, and they probably need to pay the Bowmar's off or end up with the split being publicized and UA being portrayed as not supportive of hunters. And if they had gone down that road, they would now be facing publicity for trying to cover up this hunt by the ant-hunting crowd. I wager the reason they didn't act sooner was to try and not bring extra attention to this hunt, the Bowmar's and UA. If they could have made it until the sponsorship expired they could have just not renewed them and moved on to any of the thousands of others looking for sponsorship $$$.
You bowhunt? You are aware many feel it is inhumane, suffers from penetration issues and seems reckless and dumb. I actually hear what you're saying, and I for one wouldn't have done it, shoot I wouldn't even use an atlatl myself even....but it was a legal approach to hunting, by one of their own. Their PR handled it terribly. I would also add you brought up the question "How many can throw a spear accurately?" If accuracy debate is going to be utilized, no one should hunt. I know many firearm users that suck, bow hunters that suck, crossbow hunters that suck...again I get it, I wouldn't have done it myself but...
Yep, I'm well aware of the bowhunting backlash. Not so much where I'm from because it's almost a way of life, but you're talking 250-300 fps with a bow. I feel like the margin of error with a spear is pretty much nil and the chances of terrible hits are really high. Just doesn't seem efficient.
As a business or as a consumer........we all have the right to do business or not do business with each other. It doesn't bother me that UA made a business decision based on their business model. Don't let that translate to UA being anti-hunting. Are they anti spear hunting in a legal manner? Sure looks like it. If you don't like it...don't buy. I don't have much of their stuff so I don't care. Wouldn't care either way if I was an avid UA supporter. In regards to the anti-hunting community that is always asking for hunters to make it fair and not be a coward by using guns, etc...here is what you asked for. Someone used a spear and that was worse in your eyes. Cameras on everything aren't always good for people that don't have a true concept of how food comes to their table.
