I do think it was reckless. Spearing a bear with a go pro attached to create a spectacle is the very definition of reckless ( showing disregard and not thinking of the consequences of the action).
Ok. I respect your opinion. My opinion is it's a different camera angle and one I've personally never seen before. Many hunters who film their hunts use multiple camera angles as does the majority of the BHOD crew. I don't think it was done to create a spectacle or overly dramatize the killing of an animal. Would it have been better if the Go Pro wasn't on the spear? The outcome would have been exactly the same. A dead animal.
The video was poorly edited to not seem a spectacle or reckless....not too mention the reaction lacked tact in my opinion I guess you could say. I'll be honest, it ain't my thing but I support his legal hunt 100%...it was terrible branding idea to release it as it was...even editing it better would have put a better taste out there.
Nah you're good.....put it right by the tip...FOC will be great...but not sure penetration will exceed your current set up despite that.
I guess I could say the reaction was a bit much. But I mean he just speared a bear on the ground. Gun and bow hunters do it all the time. The number of people who did what he did is almost none. I had a small buck walk within 15 yards of me on the ground yesterday morning and my heart was pounding. I couldn't imagine what his heart was doing with a bear that close. Unfortunately YouTube doesn't require any filming or editing credentials before posting. Anybody can throw anything out there. This could lead to sponsored hunters or their sponsors requiring to see films before they are posted. Which in this case may not have been a bad idea for the Bowmar's. The dumb thing, IMO, the Bowmar's haven't done is take down a video of them promoting a new line of UA gear they just posted a week ago. I think I would have taken that down by now.
If anyone is a podcast listener, Cam Hanes just came out with one talking about this very thing with Joe Rogan.
This part is really crap. They supported UA because it was financially beneficial for them to do so. If their sponsor had been Scent-Lok or Sitka they would support them just as readily. Where ever the free gear or check is coming from. It was a $$$ deal both ways. I've seen more than one personality on TV be in UA with a Matthews one year only to show up in Scent-Lok with a PSE the next. All of these agreements are about money period.
Yes they are unfortunately. It's like being a free agent in sports and playing for who writes the biggest check. I don't mind giving a good review or telling people what gear that works for me but I'm not gonna go head to toe in something just because they are paying me. Although it's easy to say when someones not writing me any checks or sending free stuff.
Not to get totally off track here, but in most cases when a sponsorship/partnership changes it has little to nothing to do with money. The one exception would be if the sponsoring company cuts their budget and cuts sponsorships. In which case the hunter looks for employment elsewhere - just as anyone would do. Also, your above mentioned scenario happens a lot less than you think. Partnerships between companies and hunters are only beneficial for both sides if they last for a significant length of time. It makes both parties look bad when they change on a regular basis. That's all for now. Carry on.
Funny you mention that because I believe the Bowmars just went from Bowtech to Hoyt before all of this went down. Regardless if they were in a contract with bowtech or not, they still took the better deal.
I'm kinda mixed on this. On one hand UA should not have dropped them(obviously) but on the other hand was that video really the best thing to post on YouTube ?
Funny you mention that because I'm pretty sure they did too. I had someone on YouTube saying they hadn't after Sarah did the Hoyt commercial. I'm pretty sure you don't do a commercial for Hoyt and still shoot Bowtech.
Im still wearing it. They (Bowmars) put UA in a tough spot. There werent any petitions when animals were being killed in the "acceptable" mainstream society way. BHOD cleans there animals up for respect for these same reasons. Should TV hunters show spine shot deer flopping around howling? I know ive edited that stuff out of my personal videos. UA has a obligation to ALL there supporters, not just the die hard redneck. This is pretty much a non issue to me. Send your UA my way! Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
I've been reading both these threads the past few days and there's alot already said I agree with and some I dont. My view, I really don't care. Whenever something like this happens my feeling is there's alot of bandwagon outrage. Many people getting offended because everyone else is, on both sides. But that the social media age we live in, everyone as an oponion. As far as UA, this isn't the first time they've caved do to pressure of public out cry. Think I saw it mentioned but last year they discontinued a shirt because of the image on it. Again I didn't really care and thought the people that were upset where being pretty childish and getting upset over nothing. Was this handled wrong, probably but you can find fault in both sides. As far as UA standing up for hunters, I again find this gripe pointless seeing as all they really said was they didn't agree with the methods used on the hunt. And while legal how many threads are on here where peole get blasted for using legal means and according to whoever it's not real hunting or not manly enough or whatever else excuse gets thrown out. Hunters are supposed to stand togehter? We don't even do that amongst eachother. At the end this doesn't really bother me, I buy and wear UA and will continue to for no other reason then I've never had a problem with the brand and it's worked for me so why change. Another couple weeks nobody will care and probably alot of people that say they'll never buy UA again will get right back in line. Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk
Grizz, I felt the same way till I found this quote, this is where they dropped the ball. They had the chance to explain the legalities, and put the pressure on the Bowmars/Alberta. Instead they put it on the legal hunting community.
