First it's spear hunting being thought of as inhumane....what happens when it's archery equipment?! Bow down to one eventually leads to bowing down to all. Just like gun rights, chip away...chip away... If it was LEGAL to do then UA should have stood behind that as long as their contract was for. Maybe when it comes time to renew they walk away, that's the right time to do it not because everyone feel's bad because someone legally took an animal. I've never owned a single UA item personally, too damn expensive. The kids have a few things in sports wear but that's it. Don't get into a product line that you don't intend to support is my opinion for UA.
Under armour drops sponsorship for spearing bear
- Thread starter Bigslam51
- Start date
huntn2
Senior Member
I am with Jesse on this one. From a business decision, well, this isn't much of a decision for UA. I will continue to wear and purchase their apparel for hunting and non-hunting alike when I find good deals.
By the way, their CEO has an awesome farm outside Baltimore that he purchased to preserve the land and the race horsing tradition of the area.
Nice view from the house.
By the way, their CEO has an awesome farm outside Baltimore that he purchased to preserve the land and the race horsing tradition of the area.
Nice view from the house.
Last edited:
I would bet dispatching an animal with a spear would be faster than an arrow. That spear is going to leave a pretty big hole. When I am hunting I often think of my forefathers out hunting trying to procure food just to survive. That is part of the enjoyment for me. Maybe he was thinking the same thing and trying to see what it was like even before bows and arrows.
I'll put my throwing accuracy up against anyone on this forum. I started throwing shit at 18 months and haven't quit. 30 years on a baseball diamond ans I'm I'll certain I can hit you square in the face from 60' 6" 97 out of a 100 times. You guys are nuts if you think there's even a comparison here because as seasoned a thrower as I am, I'll never come close to the precision of modern archery equipment. And to think of all the assholes at Walmart the week of bow season buying deer hunting spears over arrows is frightening. It's a ridiculous comparison IMO.
- 39,223
- 274
I completely disagree with Jesse on this one. What the hunter did was 100% legal and ethical. Man has been killing animals with spears since we lived in caves. It was a good hit and the bear went down quickly.
While I understand UAs decision as it pertains to their business, I also understand they shit on hunters and caved to the anti hunting community. As a hunter I cannot and will not support such an action.
The bottom line is UnderArmor does not support our right to harvest an animal by any legal means. Why should we then support them. Someone may not personally agree with the choice of weapon, however it was 100% legal. Anything less is like saying it's ok because I don't like crossbows, or it's ok because I don't agree with pistol hunting. We as hunters cannot afford to allow such divisions, period. The antis are not satisfied, they are not going away, each small victory is a victory and strengthens their resolve. They will move on to the next item they want banned, and if they can't, they go after sponsorships.
Myself personally I think we as hunters should be outraged by Under Armors actions. So much so that we should demand someone like cabelas to drop the UA brand. I can understand if dicks, bass pro, gander mountain etc won't drop them as a large part of their business is also hiking, golf, and other non hunting related outdoor activities. However Cabelas is predominately hunting related and should in no way support Under Armors actions.
As for me personally. I will never purchase another piece of UA gear. Which sucks because I love their boxer briefs.
As for TOO. UnderArmor gear will never be advertised on this site, as soon (as I figure out how to block them from the randomly generated ad provider.) while I understand Under Armors decision from a business aspect we TOO reserve similar rights in who we choose to support and sponsor. Why should we then sponsor someone who does not sponsor us and our legal means of hunting.
While I understand UAs decision as it pertains to their business, I also understand they shit on hunters and caved to the anti hunting community. As a hunter I cannot and will not support such an action.
The bottom line is UnderArmor does not support our right to harvest an animal by any legal means. Why should we then support them. Someone may not personally agree with the choice of weapon, however it was 100% legal. Anything less is like saying it's ok because I don't like crossbows, or it's ok because I don't agree with pistol hunting. We as hunters cannot afford to allow such divisions, period. The antis are not satisfied, they are not going away, each small victory is a victory and strengthens their resolve. They will move on to the next item they want banned, and if they can't, they go after sponsorships.
Myself personally I think we as hunters should be outraged by Under Armors actions. So much so that we should demand someone like cabelas to drop the UA brand. I can understand if dicks, bass pro, gander mountain etc won't drop them as a large part of their business is also hiking, golf, and other non hunting related outdoor activities. However Cabelas is predominately hunting related and should in no way support Under Armors actions.
As for me personally. I will never purchase another piece of UA gear. Which sucks because I love their boxer briefs.
As for TOO. UnderArmor gear will never be advertised on this site, as soon (as I figure out how to block them from the randomly generated ad provider.) while I understand Under Armors decision from a business aspect we TOO reserve similar rights in who we choose to support and sponsor. Why should we then sponsor someone who does not sponsor us and our legal means of hunting.
Hortontoter
Senior Member
I don't own any UA and don't really think of them as a hunting apparel company. I bet hunters equal maybe 1 or 2% of sales in a years time. I'd rather sell to 98% of my customer base than 2%, it is a no brainer.
Yes, a spear will kill an animal, but, I wouldn't consider it part of modern day hunting. I'd call it more of a " I told you I could do it", give me a high five, type of hunting. Just because we can do it, doesn't mean we always should.
Yes, a spear will kill an animal, but, I wouldn't consider it part of modern day hunting. I'd call it more of a " I told you I could do it", give me a high five, type of hunting. Just because we can do it, doesn't mean we always should.
- 39,223
- 274
Someone could make the the same argument about crossbows. The bow and arrow. Black powder rifles, recurves, cedar arrows, flint locks. The reality was it's legal. And while it may not be the most modern of method but not are any of the methods mentioned above. By this logic the only method that should be legal is high powered rifles with state of the art range finding optics. We as hunters can't allow the anti hunting groups to draw the line of what's right, ethical, or modern for us. We personally can draw the line each to our own opinion and choose the method that best suits our opinions, but we should never condone an anti hunting group going after any of them. And we should always stand behind our hunting brethren as long as they're legal no matter the method in which they choose.
While I understand UAs business decision and the fact that hunters make up a small percentage of their market share, I also understand that's a percentage of their market share they shit on. Simply because we as hunters don't make up much of their sales does not mean we should excuse or condone their actions. Under Armor shouldn't get a free pass to cave to the antis without backlash from the hunting community simply because we make up a smaller market share.
I agree with what Joe said. Put aside the weapon that was used, that shit don't matter. What does matter is that the bear was killed legally and UA caved in to the anti's. Those fuckers are chipping away one swing at a time and it's time we band together. I don't give a shit if you kill a squirrel with a slingshot, if it's legal then by all means, kill em. I'm not buying their shit anymore, not that I ever really did. I have one UA hat, I'll probably shit on it tomorrow.
They should have honored their contract. After that, Its their right to do what they want as a business. I do love their Infrared Gear, but I will no longer support them
Hortontoter
Senior Member
I see it this way. As hunters we ALL know we are under fire and scrutinized every day for what we do. Why give the antis more reason to hate on us just to kill a bear with a spear. Just because it is legal is only part of the whole picture.
Yup!!! Never owned any and never will! It's always about money and that'll never change!
- 39,223
- 274
Why would we give the antis more reason to hate on us just to kill a deer with a bow or crossbow. If we all give up our right to bow or crossbow hunt and push to only be allowed the most modern and ethical of methods we can stop the below from ever happening again.
Is a slippery slope my friend and the argument against a spear could just as easily be made for other methods. And if we allow it to be made for a spear bet your bottom dollar the antis will come after another weapon next.
Hortontoter
Senior Member
Well lets just throw in our rifles, pistols, shotguns and muzzleloaders. They all wound animals too. You really are about the most narrow minded individual I've ever come across. You should have a highway or two named in your honor. It is always Joe's way or the highway.
- 39,223
- 274
Uh dude. What you just said is exactly the point I'm trying to make to you about your stance on how we shouldn't use spears because it makes us look bad.
The same argument could be made against rifles, pistols, shotguns, and muzzleloader as your statement just pointed out. Hence I said it's a slippery slope.
As for the rest of your statement about me personally. I'm simply trying to have a discussion with you based on logical points. You make one, then I make one, that's how discussions work, that's how we all expand or change our beliefs and consider others points that we may not have. If we allow emotion to cloud our reason and cry because someone made points for us to consider that are contrary our opinion, then we learn nothing. If we allow that emotion to cloud our consideration of others points then that is the very definition of being narrow minded.
Hortontoter
Senior Member
Joe is right, it is a slippery slope. Just like the anti gunners going after the AR-15 now, the real goal is to get them all. Anti hunters are the same, they oppose all hunting. It is way easier to take small chunks than the whole thing.