I think it is a fair point to bring up that people generally say a person should be able to do what they want with their land but are more critical when a company does what it wants. However, I think the difference with the Bowmar situation is that as a whole, hunter numbers are declining. No matter what you see on forums or hear about on hunting shows, we are a very small minority of the population. With that being said, when a company makes a stand against a legal method of hunting (even though it is their right to do so) they are making a stand against all of us. They don't care about hunting. They care about the $$ hunting makes for their company. The difference between UA and Realtree, Mossy Oak, Sitka, Etc is those companies were founded and are run by hunters. UA is an athletic equipment brand that jumped on the hunting gear bandwagon because they saw lots of $ signs. And unfortunately they took the hunting gear market by storm because of their massive capital investments in advertising and big name sponsorships, money that the other names in the industry can't compete with. That's why they dropped the Bowmars. They couldn't care less about helping the hunting industry. What is even the bigger issue to me is how will their BIG sponsored hunters react. Drury's, Shockey's, LaKosky's, Levi Morgan, and Cameron Hanes all have big sponsorships with UA. Thus far only the Drurys and Cameron Hanes have issued a statement about the incident (that they will always support any form of legal hunting). While I understand 100% why they are not speaking out against their current sponsor (contractual obligations are similar to athlete contracts with teams. If they do not fulfill their contract UA can withhold or take back a lot of the money), I am waiting to see if those sponsored hunters renew their contracts again when they expire, or if they choose $$ over standing up for our small minority community. It is UA's right to choose who they sponsor and who they drop; it is also my right to choose not to support a company that does not understand or support the values of hunters. It is important to stand up for our right as hunters, a right that is god given. it is not beyond the realm of possibility that in the not so distant future our "right" to hunt could be taken away. Failing to make a stand when issues like this happen contributes to the demise of our sport. If that sad day ever comes when I am no longer legally allowed to hunt, I guess I will then be considered a poacher. I will not give up my god given right, and I will always do everything in my power to keep division from destroying our culture. When we do not stand together we are killing hunting from the inside, doing more damage to ourselves than the antis ever will.
so UA would be good if they bowed to the pressure of hunters and stood behind them even if they don't agree with the hunting style, but are bad if they bow to pressure of non-hunters? Seems like a little hypocritical criticism of them.
I think if UA really thought about it as all these people complaining that are non hunters are not going to buy their hunting attire if they drop her or not. Now they are losing business from your everyday outdoors man. Now by backing her up and saying they stand by her they could have increased their sales by people thinking wow they care type of vibe. Exactly like scentblocker is doing with their sale and stating that they back up every educated hunter. I have tons of UA gear that i have use the past couple years, even my picture im decked out in UA gear! But recently just stocked up on alot of scentblocker before this whole ordeal went down and happy I did!
Why would UA listen to those soyburger eaters just to screw one guy over. As a P&Y member these soyburger eaters should know that their ancesters are also hunters. They chose to eat, not be eaten. You know what will make these soyburger eaters reconsider. live in the big woods with no car, no tent, no shampoo, no soap, no hair brush, no lighter, no toilet paper, no bottle water, no flash light,ETC, but carry a knife, and a bow or spear and learn how to make a fire too survive just like the old pioneer times. you tell us hunters and gatherer's that you protest how friendly a mt lion,wolf or grizzly bear really is. it aint a zoo. you see the predators friendly, but the predators see you as a food source. Heres my answer, EAT OR BE EATEN.
I agree. Although UA didn't flat out "call it illegal", they implied something he did was illegal by stating they support hunting conducted within Federal, State and Local laws. IMO if Josh didn't break any laws, UA should have at least supported the legality of the hunt. I haven't seen anything specifically state Josh did anything illegal. The "reckless" part is obviously up for debate and everyone has their own opinion of that. People don't always agree with a particular hunting practice or way of hunting but there are much clearer lines between legal and illegal.
Lol, scentblocker and any others that say they are having a "sale" to back hunters up are just jumping on an opportunity to make money. Nothing else... They figure, since people generally stick with certain companies that if they can get you hooked for half price, they'll have you hooked forever. Don't make this out to be scentblocker being saviors to our sport, lol.
I agree 100% with your stance on UA having the right to drop the Bowmars if they felt like they weren't portraying their brand in the proper way. I'd expect any company, including the ones we work with, to do the same. The issue at hand is that UA saw that video, commented on it, liked it, and even congratulated Josh on his hunt. Nowhere in there did they indicate they were unhappy with what he did or were going to sever ties with Sarah because of it. It wasn't until the anti's came along and complained that they did something. This is the issue I have with the entire thing. I get why they did it. I understand the business and money decisions going on behind the scenes. However that doesn't mean I agree with it. UA is a Fortune 500 company that does BILLIONS of dollars in business globally. Think of what a major plus it would have been for hunters and hunting in general to have them stand up and stand behind the Bowmars instead of tossing them out the minute things got heated. Having them back out was a big loss for the hunting industry as a whole. This could very well give anti-hunting groups more fuel to continue pushing their agenda on other businesses or governments. If they can pressure UA to give in, who is next? It's a slippery slope here, and I would've rather had UA standing strong in our corner than shunning one of their own. Just my .02
Not at all but its smart business is what I was getting at and how UA had the opportunity to have a lot more business. Just funny how I switched over to try out all their stuff this season then this happens. With stuff like this you just kinda see the business side more of UA then someone who is a hunter. If it was me and people were signing a petition against someone hunting when we sell hunting attire id tell them to kick rocks. Not selling this camo to take pictures of the animals.
Really only way you are going to know if a company is behind hunters and their customers if you know them personally or its a mom and pop local shop. I know a bow shop locally that is all about sales and people that have spent money there. They could care less when you walk in the door and they don't know you. Where I go to a not so local shop and take the drive for the service and knowing they do care about bows, bow hunting and bow fishing.
Scent Blocker is having a site-wide sale on all of their gear up until August 31st, and their using the hashtag – #WeDo – to promote it. Their website reads, “#WeDo stand behind ethical, legal sportsmen and women who cherish the outdoors lifestyle.” If you’re one of the hunters that is now in the market for some new camo this season, today is a good day to do so.
Oh they're making money. They aren't gonna sell their products for a loss. They will still make money at 50% off or like some places, add an extra 20% to the original price, then advertise the 50% off sale. I guess it depends on what your perception of A LOT of money is. Maybe more so takin advantage of the turmoil in the market to gain customers.
Yep. Like I said earlier, most people, especially hunters are brand loyal. They may not make a ton of money this month, but in the long run they'll make a killing.
One thing that really hasn't been brought up either is that scent blocker, scent lok, etc weren't put in the position to defend themselves. It's easy for them to say they stand with all hunting when they're not put under pressure. Also, if these guys were sponsored by one of the other brands, would the brands get the heat under armour got? Doubtful. Why? Because most folks have no idea who scent lok, scent blocker, mossy oak, etc are. Especially anti hunters.
ScentLok was started by and designed by hunters....guarantee if legal they'll always support. UA is not a hunting company...it is an athletic company that branched into hunting.
Scent Blocker and Scent Lok don't cater to the general public like UA does. Their target market is much more hunter specific. Scent Blocker and Scent Lok wouldn't stand to loose the market place UA does with all of their other athletic apparel for golf, football, baseball and other sports. It would be easy for a hunting specific company to stand behind a hunter when they don't stand to loose 95% of their market share.
I agree with that. It would be like scentlok starting an athletic brand. Scentlok dropping say a football player for the way he projects himself on the field or does to much celebrating. They take heat for it and drop him. Its 100% legal to do all that but people complain. You dont see UA dropping Cam Newton for all the backlash he gets for his celebrations and show boating. They embrace him more each year.
