Bowsite.com

I am not surprised at all! under Armour proved what I always believed, they were in it for money and do not support hunting!

I only have a few items, but will not be using them at all!

I hope there is a major backlash for this!

..and the companies that refused to sponsor him from the get go?What becomes of them King?

Just sayin'

Just maybe UA is not against spear hunting at all but the presentation of this athlete's craft to the World through film.

When Donnie Vincent gets canned for a spearing a black bear (he probably never will) I'll get a little more concerned

You mean the brass at UA sat around a table with their calculators and figured there was more money to be made from non-hunters than from hunters?? And then voted for profit over virtue?

I sure hope no other companies figure out this simple trick and do likewise.

Hunters, collectively, could punish UA and make an example of them. After all, that's how they were pressured into dropping a hunter. But we won't. We WILL complain on hunting forums and wring our hands over the injustice. A very few might even not buy UA.

But we are not cohesive enough to make an impact. Heck, much of the time, WE are busy throwing other hunters under the bus, thinking in the long run it won't affect our bus ride.

I'm not sure when hunters are going to recognize that the extreme anti's that promulgate this type of outcome don't care if you hunt ethically. They don't want you to hunt anything by any method!! Period.

Until hunters get active in social media and use the same tactics as the enemy, we will be stuck sucking hind tit and getting pushed off that soon to.

I know that most non-hunters are not anti hunters and that is where the battle lies. Countering the bad info is crucial. If the only info you have is from one side then that is the message stuck in your head. Hunters are by nature somewhat withdrawn and a bit reclusive, because we want to escape to a more natural, less worldly place and ignore the flap and frills of modern society. But ignoring the reality will not make it pass over you unscathed.

So who is going to write UA a letter. Maybe include a pic of a piece of gear going into the garbage. Who's going to use their facebook/twitter/buzzchat/etc to create awareness?

Pretty sure all that UA is going to hear from over in the hunter's camp, is the crickets chirping.

I don't think they can have their cake and eat it too. Unfortunately, I don't think they can cater to sports, and cater to hunters. Not in today's world.

I'm not surprised they choose to boot the hunters.

You have to admit it is stupid to post that kind of thing on facebook or anywhere on the internet. Hunting is not loved by the masses, and you're not going to convert the masses with that.

Let's say you love beating your wife and she loves it too. Go post on facebook that you enjoy beating your wife and she loves it too. Expect backlash. Doesn't matter what you and your wife are into, the majority of people don't like it. You have to think of context when "putting things out there." Put it somewhere only a hunting community can see? Sure. Out in the wide open internet? Bad idea.

Bring back Treebark

The news of them caving to antis does shock me after hearing that podcast. Maybe he didn't make the call, and will hopefully speak out on the situation.

What are you supposed to do? Kneel and build a shrine? How many folks you know who have done such a thing? Maybe lots of folks, but I can only come up with.... 1.

Most folks shoot stuff by themselves and no one else around. If you don't know, it makes a difference in your reaction when there are other people around and being filmed, etc.... well, you just don't know what you don't know.

UA bailed. Pretty much the Target of hunting clothing.... never liked the stuff much anyway, lots of better options....

Now I don't even have to think about it

Right, so the actions of corporate UA aren't responsible for for the well being of it's employees, we are. Makes sense to me.

Treebark and Predator were probably the best camo patterns out there. I buy it when I can on estate , garage sales, rendevous etc.

God Bless men

Frankly, though, UA could have gone the other way and used the close proximity kill to dispel the stink factor in their gear. That would have been useful if not totally dishonest.:)

I finally saw the video and, while we all know there was nothing wrong with what he did, putting yourself in a non hunters view, I can see where that one should have stayed off social media due to how it will be perceived by many. I'm not condemning the hunter or saying UA should have done that. I'm just saying I'm not surprised there was some backlash from it.

I wish the spear hunter and his wife the best. God Bless

Yes, UA’s statement was not worded properly, but they did what they had to do from a business standpoint. No one is going to remember the exact wording, trust me.

This isn’t about the act of killing the bear, it’s about the portrayal and broadcasting of it. They broke no laws and ethics are personal. We are not the judges of what is ethical (one of the reasons I rarely post on here).

When you choose to publicize hunting, you inherently accept responsibility to portray it in a positive light on behalf of all of us. This is not to appease the anti’s. Anti-hunters are as emotionally vested in their cause as we are in ours. This is about the hunting-neutral majority of voters. We don’t have a chance to reach them to state our case. They only see the bad sides of hunting, the narratives pushed by a media, who happens to collectively be opposed to our lifestyle as well.

I’ve had the privilege of traveling and meeting people from all over the US and some parts of the world. I grew up in small town USA and I understand that it can be hard to see things outside of our little bubbles. Having both perspectives, I’m not sure many of you realize just how perilous hunting stands within the demographics of California, Oregon, Washington, and the Northeastern seaboard. We collectively have a difficult fight on our hands without shooting ourselves in the foot. Don’t think that when hunting is illegal in California, that they aren’t going to go after Colorado, Pennsylvania, West Virginia next.

Josh and Sarah may be good people, I don’t know. There is no doubt they made an extreme mistake in judgement, and they are going to pay the consequences. I pray that they land on their feet and learn from this, but I hope not to see them in the hunting industry in the future. Collectively as hunters, we deserve better, more respectful representation than they have shown capable of.

Bowsiters, please just stop and think about what particular actions mean before you blindly support a fellow hunter who chooses to cast themselves into the public arena. This isn’t an us-versus-the anti-hunters battle. It is merely smart public relations in a protracted battle for the future of hunting.

If I was an anti-hunter / activist I would WANT videos like Bowmar's and countless others to be free fodder for building fires. I would be delighted every time a hunter appeared on video to be thrilled at the injury and hopeful death of an animal...even ecstatic. It's exactly the type of ammo I would use to feed the army and recruit new members to fight against hunters.

Disavowing the production of these videos isn't backing down in any way. It's using simple logic to minimize a weapon being used against us every day. It's only a matter of time before we will see a Bowmar-type video show up in a prime-time Save The Animals ad...just like we now see all the sad dog and cat faces peering out from cages and tugging at our heartstrings....or the heartstrings of non-hunters deciding whether their children should be allowed to hunt animals.

If you don't think this impacts companies like this it does. When the Million Mom group said they would boycott Target after bathroom policy many said it wouldn't do much.

The next quarter they missed forecast and their brand metrics plummeted.

If hunters were a company we would be Fortune 50. hunters are a serious force to be reckon with when it comes to spend. That doesn't even include just outdoor activities which would increase that number significantly.

UA biggest mistake was they aren't the clear leader in the category and can't afford these types of misteps because going back to Nike or another brand makes it nearly impossible to steal those consumers back for a second time.

I can guarantee you they are scrambling to fix this OR drop hunting line all together.

They are screwed.

Just because it's your right doesn't always mean it's the right thing to do.

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 shit " are over. Like it or not Non hunters views of us effect us, and not taking that into consideration is plain shortsighted foolishness.

In today's world, you put it out there, you can't take it back, just like an arrow.

Unfortunately, the video portrayed us all, like it or not.

Because there was zero wrong with with that hunt, nor the reaction to it. I would suggest YOU go spear a bear on the ground.... no blind, no candy azz tree stand as if that makes it more.... ethical....

"he gets bashed for making a tough business decision" Yes.A business decision. His decision is he went with his friend and employer. Which ethically means WHAT for hunting? Zip.

In all fairness it wasn't Cam's call. He wasn't consulted, as bean counters in suits likely will not. And again, I know of nobody who quit their employment over some corporate decision of who they work for. That is what it is.

But I hope UA gets hammered for caving in to what in reality is a handful of people who Lord knows what percentage ever venture out and actually buy and use their product. Honestly.... I think if hunters get it together and make their numbers known they would make a much larger dent..... I don't think there are that many UA customers who this will make them boycott over this video. Most are sitting on their ... couch.... and eating B$J ice cream in their underwear....

If this is all it takes for them to cave..... they have NO interest in the SUPPORT of hunting.... only to see if they can get some hunters to buy their stuff and make some money off them.....

Support companies that have an interest in hunters and hunting. THEY will be much more likely to have your back.....

Undoubtedly UA responded to negative pressure from their non-hunting customer base and then tossed the Bowmars. I'm figuring UA viewed the video pretty thoroughly and came down on the side of judging it as too controversial and offensive for a majority of their customer base. As has been said repeatedly, this comes down to doing what a very large company must do which is make decisions in the best interest of the business and its shareholders. They'll figure to lose some business and rep from hunters, but that's likely a pretty small fire compared to the inferno that could happen if they stood and defended the Bowmar video simply on principle.

Another probable truth is that over 80% of UA's hunting product sales will be made to hunters who know nothing about the Bowmar situation and wouldn't care if they did.

My companies job (one of the largest in the industry) is to build brands.

What is happening on their FB page is incredible and they are screwed.

What's making it worse is they are ignoring the hunters on their page which is making them more irate. Compounding the issue is the antis have found that UA executives hunt so now they are mad.

This is a great case study of social media incompetency and it's going to crush UA soon if they don't fix it today.

UA is getting everything they deserve. Like I said Target did this same thing and they got CRUSHED. It will take 18-24+ months before they recover to where they were.

I have been counting and for every 3 supportive posts there are 100 mad hunter posts. That's insane. Nothing I bhave seen to date compares to that gap.

I think it points to a future where companies will be hesitant to throw blanket support to hunters unless hunters comprise the majority of their business.

In this case I see UA divorcing themselves from someone associated with a controversial hunt/kill video and knowing there will be some unhappy hunters. No video...no social media...no controversy. Score a PR loss for hunters. Time will tell how it plays out, but I think the UA logo isn't going away anytime soon.

Sponsored hunters know the drill.

Unfortunately, when that "low hanging fruit" is knocked off the tree and trashed, the next tier up is now the new bottom.

I think most of us agree that the video should not have been made available in it's entirety or maybe not at all. Because the anti's will pick out the few seconds that they want to portray as the reality. So we have to be careful to leave out that ammunition.

But anybody that thinks siding with the anti's on this particular episode will win any points with non-hunters is sadly mistaken.

UA made a business decision in their boardroom and business is business. They live or die by those types of decisions everyday in a fickle, competitive market. As well, my choice to support or not is my decision.

Just "..not having a problem.." with someone else's weapon or style is not going to be good enough for survival of hunting in the longer term. Only active, aggressive and inclusive support is going to forestall the inevitable.

I had always in the past believed that when you give an inch to ARA's or gun grabbers that they will take a mile but I am not so sure that we are all in the same boat anymore. I think Steve Rinella is the one that said this but it was something to the effect about all being in the same boat and one guy is shooting holes in the bottom......it is OK to kick him out. I am torn on this issue because I am not sure what is best for hunting in the long run....BUT whatever that is I am for.

Scent Blocker is the type of company I will support from now on.

The Bowmar's probably are really good people. I think the judgement used in this video was lacking. If you want to tell a story of spear hunting, great. However, you aren't just catering to the audience you WANT to see the video. If they didn't see this backlash coming, they are very naïve.

I have no problem with the method of take. I do have a problem with the overall attitude the video presents to people who may or may not support hunting. Videos like this are damaging to all of us. With a little more thought, they could have done a very good video that presented the primitive art of spear hunting, instead of what appears to be an ego trip and lots of chest beating.

When it's your own job/live that is under threat, a much more sober approach is taken. If it's not you personally, it's just like playing with Monopoly money.

Sad thing is, the anti's have spilled a bit more blood and that truly excites and emboldens them. :{ Alberta Fish and Game has come out and supported a ban on spears and atlatls What's next after big spears? Why, little spears of course.

We will suffer death by a thousand small cuts.

And that is what the antis wanted him to do. He is obviously a supporter of spear hunting. His behavior just indirectly led to the loss of it.

Sorry but as archery hunters we are one misplaced arrow on video away from the same reaction maybe worse.

I am surprised at how many do not realize that this literally is only one small step from an archery ban. Sorry but UA folded and folded hard to a Change.org petition. They reacted swiftly and without reason.

They showed that their bottom line is far more important. As a result they have betrayed the hunting community and old Cam while calculated and a decent guy has ultimately showed that he too is about bottom line and not about the true passion of hunting and supporting it...

It will have a ripple effect. We need these large companies who suck our money up to actually stand strong and support legal hunting.

I beleive that Scent Blocker is offering a discount to sway over UA hunters.

To put that in perspective after Cecil/Target the mix was much more like 50/50 or 60/40.

They seriously miscalculated the reaction and missed the mark on who their customers where. I am not sure how they didn't know hunters make up a HUGE portion of their base since most team sports are in the southeast, midwest, mid-atlantic and northwest.

Many pros are hunters/fishermen.

The other complete stupidity of their move is the fact they sponsor people like Phelps who has 2 DWIs, etc.

After Target's debacle brands should know to only make moves if you absolutely have to. They didn't need to do this especially since they have a hunting line.

Complete marketing debacle and failure. Someone is getting fired over this.

There's a lot of room between hiding what we do and waving a bloody gut pile (metaphorically speaking) in peoples' faces. I couldn't begin to tell you how many true non-hunters I've known that were turned off by public idiocy displayed by hunters. Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should necessarily broadcast it in vivid color on the internet.

I will say it was a poorly written statement and not much thought was given to the pro hunting customer base by the writer. I don't know if that was by design or by accident, but I can't imagine the goal was the blowback they are getting. The difference between their hunting customer and their swimming customer is that there aren't giant, well-funded, radical groups out there trying to outlaw swimming. I don't think the guy or gal that wrote their statement took that into consideration.

I would like to see them respond with something pro-hunting. I know some guys at the top are hunters.

It would be intersting to see if the 'hunting community' could really put a dent in the company's financials.

There is a much bigger market in exercise and field sports apparel than hunting. And, you don't have to worry about odor as much either. With non-hunting use, you wash more often...

no every right we exercise has to be made available to the entire human race, at least those with internet access, to view.

bad move by them

This is just more evidence that we are as divided as we are doomed. And one because of the other. At my age, I'm not too worried about my own hunting future. Just be nice for my kids and grandkids, that's all.

But everybody chooses their own path and I'm OK with that.

Did anybody yank his sponsorship? Why is this so different?

If you can't see the we live in a divided country/world over this issue,like it or not, you have to be careful about how hunting is presented on film. Period.

The proliferation of hunting footage on social media/Youtube and the complete lack of thought about how something might look is going to make hunting much more difficult for all hunters. The availability of cheap cameras with high definition, simple editing apps, and Youtube has made the last 10 years just nuts.

It wasn't the spear so much as the over celebration, the repeat of "I can't believe I killed this bear with a spear" 10x, and the intestines hanging out that put this video in the "not helpful to the cause of hunting" category. Not to mention, do hunting show hosts want to encourage others to get on the ground with bears with only a spear in hand?

Seems like common sense to me.

Yes, Tim Wells' show's opening sequence features lots of spearhunting, a poem espousing how great of a hunter he is (e.g. "if it flies it dies"), etc. Not to mention that it ends with what appears to be him shooting a grizzly in the head with an arrow, at close range with the bear facing him. I find the whole thing offensive, and especially can't believe the Sportsmans Channel allows the footage of the grizzly shot - a shot that is ethically questionable, reflects poorly on bowhunters, and is downright stupid to take. I can't understand how that has not blown up somehow; maybe no one has noticed it yet. Or they can't stand to watch the whole thing and have already changed channels by then. I don't know anything about Tim, and really don't know whether his show is any good or not, because that opening sequence makes me totally lose interest in watching any further.

Surely hunting can be portrayed with more class than this! Many shows do, but there is room for improvement with many shows too.

Hunting is a $50 BILLION industry while Sports (Shoes/Apparel) is about $64 BILLION. UA absolutely pushed themselves out of a huge market.

UA is still a relatively small brand compared to Nike - hunters make up 13% of Nike's customer base.

UA forgot that most team sports and athletes come from hunting communities - SEC/ACC/Big 10.

BTW Hunters on average are 7% above the US average household income.

Also if you are interested Republican households make $94k a year vs. $76k for Democrats.

Our society has become way more sensitive than previous generations. 10-15 years ago, if a video came out like this, it might not have caused such an uproar like it does today. We as hunters I think need to do more "self policing" and control what we show to the general public. I'm not saying we need to hide and not be proud of our experiences. We just need to be more aware of what we want to portray. We are NEVER going to appease the anti hunting/animal rights people. But its those people on the fence, the non hunting folk who don't have anything against hunting, that can be influenced.

Let's face it, hunters make up a VERY small percentage of the total population. We may number in the millions but compared to the rest of the country its extremely small. I think we only hurt ourselves when we take the attitude of "I hunt, deal with it, I don't care what you think". You can say that to an anti hunter, that's fine, but if you want to flip someone who is on the fence to the anti side, have that sort of attitude.

I'm sure we all know another hunter or two who through their actions portray hunters in a bad light. To the general public, they only remember the bad one's, never the good people.

I wish I could purchase KUIU, Sitka, or any of the other dedicated hunting brands. But when I can buy multiple UA clothes for the cost of one of the other brands, its hard to justify the extra money.

This!

Everyone is programmed different and everyone has the right to celebrate the way they want to.

This guy did NOTHING wrong.

Native Americans run and club down ducks that are molting. They smile and celebrate their kills. You may not like it but it's no better/or worse than a quick bow kill. It's all hunting and what has been done for thousands of years.

BTW We make up 6% of the US population. That's not small.

So, what % of UA customer base is hunters? Is that enough to put a dent in their financials?

If hunting is a $50 bill industry and sports is a $64 bill industry (larger market BTW) what portion does the hunting industry own in apparel vs sports, and further, what portion does UA own in hunter apparel vs Scentblocker, Sitka, Kuiu, Firstlite, etc.? Provide these stats and I'll say thanks for sharing, because my statement is just a gut feeling.

Also, according to your statement about household incomes, ok, whatever. But, are you inferring that only republican hunters can afford big name brands of hunting articles?

The things we get all twisted up about is pretty fickle at best.

(As of the June US population count, hunters make up 19.422 mill out of the total 323.700 mill).

Most segments of a company are in the 7-10% range.

323 million includes infants and children - most companies focus on Adults or almost adults. So 238 million.

Since UA focus heavily on team sports I bet hunters make up 20% of their base which is why they launched a hunting line.

Why this whole situation is absolutely ridiculous and just poor marketing is the fact they likely had just a handful of months before their contract was up and they could have made up one of many reasons why they weren't renewing their contract.

Plus their executives hunt which didn't make the anti's happy so they lost on all accounts.

If there was a Darwin award for marketing every year UA would be running neck-and-neck with Target.

It helps, yes. Even though the adult population is a portion of the total, the total number of hunters include kids as well. For example, I'm outnumbered 2 to 1 in my house. Those other two do not have the gear I do because I will not out grow mine. The others will. I doubt many families consistantly buy the good stuff every year for their up and coming simply because they can't, even if they pull down 98 G's per year (gross, not net). Life in general gets in the way first.

I would be surprised to see UA go out of business.

I recall watching Fred Bear use a gun to bust glass bottles thrown in the air while on a boat. The broken glass dropped into the sea. That was videoed and televised. It was a normal sort of thing for that day. If he did that today he would be instantly vilified by hunters, anti-hunters, soccer moms and every archery company in existence. Bear Archery would vote him to the hall of shame today.

My point is that societal tolerance and expectations change with the times. Hunting is older than any country in existence. Hunting videos have been made since before I was born. Anti-hunters have hated hunters since someone ate the first wild radish. But never has there been the proliferation of hunt-kill videos like we've seen in the past decade or so. I think we're seeing the evidence that some of them are producing very negative reactions from hunters, non-hunters, companies and otherwise noncommittal folks who see them.

Again...to me this is only about the video and what it showed...how it portrayed the kill. I'm in no way against Bowmar for hunting legally.

Sage, question on the %'s. I'm amazed hunting is that close to "sports" as a classification in terms of $ generated. Is it safe to say, that the 50~ bil number for hunting is for all of hunting: bows, tree stands, guns, boots, clothes etc, while the "sports" number is for clothing and shoes only?

Just curious on that, it just seemed much closer to what I'm interpreting (perhaps wrongly) as a much bigger retail market - in the form of all the sports "we" all take part in.

I want to make sure I'm reading that correctly so I can understand better.

Thanks!

The Target comparison was spot on. To placate a radical and vocal few they did what they thought was the PC thing to do. Completely misjudging how a large segment of their customer base would react. It cost them millions. Is still costing them millions. How many trannys would have boycotted them for not doing anything but to continue their policies? What amount of their business are cross dressers?

Like Target, UA will not be put out of business.... but that isn't the point. They should be effected, take a big loss, made to pay for their actions. As much as a case study to other companies who are willing to publicly side with anti-hunters and throw hunting under the bus, which this very much was.

These people broke NO laws, weren't dealing drugs, no pedophiles, didn't trash a bathroom and then lie about being mugged, they took a weapon and killed a bear with it, I would assume the very reason they were sponsored, or at least the wife, the guy was not under any contract even.... they killed a bear as a great many bear hunters here have done. Although I would consider what they did a very difficult thing to do, far more so than an arrow or gun. Heck of an accomplishment in my book. If you bowhunt for the challenge and rush of close up and personal.... that was WAY close up and personal....

Look, these nut cases are stalkers of a sort. Nobody is shoving any hunting stories, pics or video in their faces, they have to go SEEK it out. They are LOOKING for it, not "assaulted" by it.

They really don't care the guy used a spear or was overly excited or anything of the sort. Like it was stated, the young lady with the giraffe was publicly trashed, any number of hunting pics on facebook and wherever are attacked, several people on this very site have been targeted. So now we are to quite taking pictures to share because of a handful of whack jobs? We are to go in hiding and keep what we do a secret? Ambush and others above are right. That will be the first step of the end. When hunters themselves act ashamed of what they do.

Hunter hunt. It's what we have done for millennia, it's in the genes. We take our place as best we can in the natural world. Screw these nut cases. They need to be told to go away and leave people alone.

However, it's the "aftermath" of what the sponsor does is what they are accountable for.

It would be intersting to see what the real pulse is on this in the hunting world as a whole.

There may be more to the story than we know.

Can't stand it. So I really don't care what they do.

^^^^THIS!^^^^

I agree with all the comments about hunters being more accountable, and putting out a positive image for us all, collectively. BUT...at the end of the day, hunters KILL animals! There is no hiding, or denying this fact, and it's something companies like UA need to realize before handing out, and then retracting, endorsements.

The bigger threat, is what policy changes are occurring after these social media blow-ups occur. After Cecil, lion hunting was banned in Zimbabwe. After this, spear hunting is probably going to be banned in Alberta.

The one positive that can come out of this whole debacle, is that perhaps not just UA, but all of society will see what happens when you piss off and refuse to back millions of hunters, and we all join together to show what we can accomplish as a group. I believe that solidarity amongst our ranks is a trend that must continue, if we want to continue our way of life.

Absolutely!! And...A hunter has the discretionary right and privilege to drop UA if their behavior is contradictive to how they want UA to support the very market they pander to."

People have the right to buy or not buy a product if they want.

People also have the right to get butt hurt about each of those.

People also have to right to laugh about it.

Their stock isn't losing value...up 10% since 8-4. I read they have 6,500 petition signatures to bring back the Bowmars. $4B/yr company. Sponsored 225 Olympic athletes in Rio.

From Alberta:

"The type of archaic hunting seen in the recently posted video … is unacceptable," Alberta's Ministry of Environment and Parks said in a written statement. "We will introduce a ban on spear hunting this fall."

"We've got at least one hunter that has come up here and wanted to hunt by use of a spear, so now it means we're going to have to address it by way of policy," said Wayne Lowry, president of the Alberta Fish and Game Association, a conservation group that consults with government on its regulations.

Apparently spears weren't banned for bear hunting, but neither were they explicitly listed as a permissible hunting weapon in Alberta. The video brought that to a head. Though I've searched I haven't (yet) found any statement from wildlife officials (Alberta) supporting spearing.

I idly wonder how many non-hunting (not anti-hunting) voters would vote to support spearing bears. I further wonder if a bear-spearing video would help convince them which side of the fence to come down on.

I can't answer with a number but I am pretty sure what side they will fall on.....I honestly don't think that video would pass the smell test to many non hunters.

That's just the free market, no biggie...