Want to know anti-hunting companies

[tttoadman]

subscribed also.
I appreciate all the time some of you put into threads like this to get us good info. I imagine it is time consuming and difficult to wade through the BS to get to the truth.

 

[milunchbox]

+1

I'd also caution against labeling a company anti-hunting because they once donated to a organization that used to have a light affiliation with a wild deer adoption agency. Most of these companies are so large that if a marketing exec agrees to give $1000 to an environmental group so they can get their logo on a race banner or something, that doesn't make the company anti-hunting.

And I don't mean MSR....I don't know anything about them. I'm just saying I've heard people boycott a company because they donated some hats to a PETA state fair booth once. A friend of mine is now boycotting Taco Bell because one Taco Bell manager in Iowa asked some guy to leave because he was open carrying a hand gun. That doesn't make the whole company anti-hunting or anti-gun.

I agree with you, but a company that does business with hunters, makes money from hunters and/or exploits hunting to make money shouldn't give big bucks to PETA, IDA, HSUS, Defenders of Wildlife, Sierra club, Friends of Animals, or Howling for Wolves. Those are just a few that I know of that push hard on government and people to tell them hunting is bad. I feel that every company should show where they donate money or goods to so you know what you are really supporting other than making some dude really rich.
Jimbo

 

[Trial153]

You also have to watch for matching employee contributions. Many companies will match dollar for dollar up to a capped amount for any employee donations. For example xyz employee donates say 100 and they submit the match form and then the company matches the donation. It gets listed as a donation obviously for tax purposes however it doesn't necessarily represent any meaningful affiliation.

 

[milunchbox]

Yea I would go with the larger transactions of a company.

 

[CrzyTrekker]

Hmmm, saying that you heard someone say "Company X will not sponsor a hunter," and therefore Company X is anti-hunting, is very thin logic.

This is "us versus them" propaganda, and very non-productive.

Someone mentioned Patagonia as being anti-hunting, but Patagonia has already responded to this allegation by simply stating that they make products for those sports enjoyed by the founder, Yvon Chouinard. He surfs, fly-fishes, climbs, etc. His personal choices do not make Patagonia the company an anti-hunting organization. Also, the fact that a company like Patagonia spends money to improve the health of ecosystems, should make the average hunter happy, even if the money isn't always spent 100% the way YOU MIGHT HAVE SPENT IT.

Cripes fellas, this is the kind of idiotic discussion that has mainstream America thinking we're a bunch of yahoos in the woods.

 

[milunchbox]

Hmmm, saying that you heard someone say "Company X will not sponsor a hunter," and therefore Company X is anti-hunting, is very thin logic.

This is "us versus them" propaganda, and very non-productive.

Someone mentioned Patagonia as being anti-hunting, but Patagonia has already responded to this allegation by simply stating that they make products for those sports enjoyed by the founder, Yvon Chouinard. He surfs, fly-fishes, climbs, etc. His personal choices do not make Patagonia the company an anti-hunting organization. Also, the fact that a company like Patagonia spends money to improve the health of ecosystems, should make the average hunter happy, even if the money isn't always spent 100% the way YOU MIGHT HAVE SPENT IT.

Cripes fellas, this is the kind of idiotic discussion that has mainstream America thinking we're a bunch of yahoos in the woods.

Unlike most companies, any for that matter, they post who and where they donate money too. Some of the places are strictly against hunting. Im not trying to start a bashing campaign I was just wondering what companies that I or other people on this forum use, might donate large sums of money to something we are buying these product for. Heres the link for Patagonia http://www.patagonia.com/pdf/en_US/ENV14-Printed_r2.pdf
Jimbo

 

[CrzyTrekker]

Jimbo,

I think your analysis needs to go a bit deeper. Patagonia is known for giving money to groups, including groups that are against "canned" hunts, for example. That doesn't make them anti-hunting. The hunting community as a whole should be less afraid of speaking out against unethical hunts, including hunts that are not fair chase. Just because a thing is legal, doesn't make it right for the future of our kids and the planet. Again, you have to ask whether fostering an "us versus them" attitude is going to be productive in the long run, when such a small percentage of the population hunts.

When the population of planet earth snowballs around 2050, what will the non-hunting populace say about our activities? If we're respectful of people and the planet, then we have a fighting chance.

Companies that got their start in mountaineering, like Patagonia (and many others that make excellent backcountry gear) are pro-environment more than they are anti-hunting. And, not everything embraced by the hunting community is good for the long-term outlook of hunting.

I don't know about you, but I want my grandchildren to have the ability to hunt, fish, backpack, see the milky way shining bright over the mountains. If hunting continues to be so unsustainable, for the most part (i.e. guys hauling massive amounts of gear into the woods, atvs, etc.), then that bright future probably will not be there for our grandkids.

Just my two cents...

 

[dotman]

Jimbo,

I think your analysis needs to go a bit deeper. Patagonia is known for giving money to groups, including groups that are against "canned" hunts, for example. That doesn't make them anti-hunting. The hunting community as a whole should be less afraid of speaking out against unethical hunts, including hunts that are not fair chase. Just because a thing is legal, doesn't make it right for the future of our kids and the planet. Again, you have to ask whether fostering an "us versus them" attitude is going to be productive in the long run, when such a small percentage of the population hunts.

When the population of planet earth snowballs around 2050, what will the non-hunting populace say about our activities? If we're respectful of people and the planet, then we have a fighting chance.

Companies that got their start in mountaineering, like Patagonia (and many others that make excellent backcountry gear) are pro-environment more than they are anti-hunting. And, not everything embraced by the hunting community is good for the long-term outlook of hunting.

I don't know about you, but I want my grandchildren to have the ability to hunt, fish, backpack, see the milky way shining bright over the mountains. If hunting continues to be so unsustainable, for the most part (i.e. guys hauling massive amounts of gear into the woods, atvs, etc.), then that bright future probably will not be there for our grandkids.

Just my two cents...

I agree....

 

[Trial153]

I for one am sick of the Notion that as hunters we can't police our own without tagged as non supporters of the sport.
Canned hunts, Elitist political tags, quasi game preserves, spot and call guiding, and the general crony capitalism that is permeating hunting is all Detrimental to the future of the large majority of hunters.
We no longer are in a vacuum when 95% of the population doesn't hunt and their perception will shape our future.

 

[topher89]

I for one am sick of the Notion that as hunters we can't police our own without tagged as non supporters of the sport.
Canned hunts, Elitist political tags, quasi game preserves, spot and call guiding, and the general crony capitalism that is permeating hunting is all Detrimental to the future of the large majority of hunters.
We no longer are in a vacuum when 95% of the population doesn't hunt and their perception will shape our future.

Agreed. I have never had someone attack me for being a hunter when I describe that I DIY, hunt pubic land and eat all the meat. And I even lived in Boulder. People respect ethical and responsible hunting.

Canned hunts, trophy hunting and people spending an average family's yearly income to kill endangered animals will be the death of hunting. When it comes down to it, Patagonia and other companies are way more aligned with us than we or they think. It is time for hunters to police ourselves and change the public's perception

 

[jaysoda]

Jimbo,

I think your analysis needs to go a bit deeper. Patagonia is known for giving money to groups, including groups that are against "canned" hunts, for example. That doesn't make them anti-hunting. The hunting community as a whole should be less afraid of speaking out against unethical hunts, including hunts that are not fair chase. Just because a thing is legal, doesn't make it right for the future of our kids and the planet. Again, you have to ask whether fostering an "us versus them" attitude is going to be productive in the long run, when such a small percentage of the population hunts.

When the population of planet earth snowballs around 2050, what will the non-hunting populace say about our activities? If we're respectful of people and the planet, then we have a fighting chance.

Companies that got their start in mountaineering, like Patagonia (and many others that make excellent backcountry gear) are pro-environment more than they are anti-hunting. And, not everything embraced by the hunting community is good for the long-term outlook of hunting.

I don't know about you, but I want my grandchildren to have the ability to hunt, fish, backpack, see the milky way shining bright over the mountains. If hunting continues to be so unsustainable, for the most part (i.e. guys hauling massive amounts of gear into the woods, atvs, etc.), then that bright future probably will not be there for our grandkids.

Just my two cents...

Dude, you really get it. Awesome posts.

Steven Rinella said it best - "We hunt at the pleasure of non-hunters."

And, he's totally right. If the non-hunting population, which already vastly outnumbers us, decides to vote and ban hunting, there is not a damn thing we would be able to do about it. There is no 2nd Amendment for hunting. Those with the 'Us vs Them' mentality should remember this.

 

[TXCO]

I dont support Patagonia and New Belgium Brewery (Fat Tire). They have both actively campaigned against oil and natural gas, which is my industry. The funny thing for me is that Patagonia wouldnt be able to make clothes without the materials that originate from O&G. Patagonia also appears to be ok with fishing but not hunting. I cant support that.

I agree with other posts that not taking a stance is not necessarily an admission of guilt. I think the key is to looking at what they sponsor not necessarily small donations which could be a match program. My company has a match program to any 501C3 so it cant be biased there. I just prefer to support the companies which support my causes.

 

[lab-roamer]

A different side of the issue: My beef with companies like Patagonia is they preach environmentalism, sustainability, etc... but their products are made overseas in third world countries where environmental(notice the word mental in environmental) laws are non-existent and "sweat shops" are the norm. Then put on cargo ships that burn diesel (measured by gallons per second) to be shipped to the Yuppi consumer that drive right by the small Mom and Pop Made in the USA stores(think Kifaru).

 

[bourbon]

And, he's totally right. If the non-hunting population, which already vastly outnumbers us, decides to vote and ban hunting, there is not a damn thing we would be able to do about it. There is no 2nd Amendment for hunting. Those with the 'Us vs Them' mentality should remember this.

If your state currently has not amended a Right to Hunt provision to their constitution then it is time you and others in your community start pushing for it. Ours was added in 2012.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/enviro...te-constitutional-right-to-hunt-and-fish.aspx

 

[power54]

I couldn't help but notice in 2014 Patagonia gave money to Trout Unlimited (pgs. 41, 58), Pheasants Forever (pg. 53), Wyoming Wildlife Federation (pg. 61), and even TRCP (pg. 49).

Here is the link again...

http://www.patagonia.com/pdf/en_US/ENV14-Printed_r2.pdf

 

[Trial153]

I honestly understand the Patagonia paradox. Some hunters see them supporting predator reintroduction organizations and the assumption is the y represent anti hunting....couldn't someone be neutral on hunting and still want to see native wildlife restored to their natural environment ?

 

[gmajor]

I for one am sick of the Notion that as hunters we can't police our own without tagged as non supporters of the sport.
Canned hunts, Elitist political tags, quasi game preserves, spot and call guiding, and the general crony capitalism that is permeating hunting is all Detrimental to the future of the large majority of hunters.
We no longer are in a vacuum when 95% of the population doesn't hunt and their perception will shape our future.

Couldn't agree more. This idea that we can't criticize any aspect of the hunting sphere is absurd, and frankly dangerous. I find many canned hunts repulsive, and they're also horrible PR. Cue the Rinella quote mentioned above.

 

[topher89]

I honestly understand the Patagonia paradox. Some hunters see them supporting predator reintroduction organizations and the assumption is the y represent anti hunting....couldn't someone be neutral on hunting and still want to see native wildlife restored to their natural environment ?

I think above all, Patagonia is pro-environment and pro-wildlife. I don't think they have a stance on hunting. They fund Pheasants Forever because the group does great things for pheasants and the environment. They donate to wolf groups because they re-introduce an endangered animal.

 

[Trial153]

I think above all, Patagonia is pro-environment and pro-wildlife. I don't think they have a stance on hunting. They fund Pheasants Forever because the group does great things for pheasants and the environment. They donate to wolf groups because they re-introduce an endangered animal.

I agree and that's my point. Just because you support a cause, say wolf reintroduction, that may have an negative effect on a game population doesn't make you anti hunting per say.

 

[wawhitey]

Heres an idea. Probably come up with some companies you would otherwise forget to check on. Find an animal rights forum and ask what the "good" companies are that donate to anti hunting organizations.