We Support Them, Question is do they stand behind us?

[rayporter]

i try not to put my dollars toward anyone who i suspect is anti hunting [ or anti gun]. it is hard to keep track of who is and who is not.

thanks

 

[WesternBounty]

I'm guessing when they read a question like that, the person would just assume it was posed by an anti-hunter and therefore take the safe route so as not to stir the pot. While I agree it would've been nice to see them stand up for what they believe in, I'm sure if the question were posed to where you had identified yourself as a hunter or at least pro-hunting, some of the the responses would've been different. But then I guess that would defeat the purpose of the experiment.

We did toss around the idea about making the question recognizable that we are hunters, but as you said we felt that defeated the purpose. We wanted to know what companies have no problem standing behind us, we understand bigger companies have a huge demographic, which is why we weren't surprised with a lot of the "neutral" responses, but as a hunter it was good to know some companies aren't afraid to stand by us, that is a good feeling!

 

[jmez]

I don't think Under Armour can be questioned in their commitment or seen as a company that doesn't stand behind hunters even though they gave a neutral response. I'm guessing they spend more per year promoting hunting through advertising and Pro Staff Contracts than the rest of the companies combined.

 

[bigeasygator]

I view the Under Armour response as not even a response. That's a response crafted up by the lawyers. In other words, they're playing it safe which isn't a surprise given how big they are. The email probably didn't make it past some lowly customer service department -- hardly the group tasked with advocating a corporate stance on a political issue like hunting. Like jmez says, they probably spend more money promoting hunting than any of those other companies combined. They have a "Hunting" link to clothing on their main page under the men's department. I'd say it's pretty safe to say they support hunting.

 

[WesternBounty]

If you both read through the blog post, it wasn't created to "bash" any company, or to sway people to not buy from the companies anymore. As a hunter, and active conservationist, I PERSONALLY find it important that these companies stand behind our passion. I understand that a lot of these companies are huge corporations, but personally big or small, if I'm selling hunting related products, I would at least mention that in my response to an email as the such one we sent out. Everybody has their opinion and they are allowed to have it, and I'm not here to change your opinion. Curiosity persuaded this post, a curiosity that is important to me, because the world is always about being "politically correct" lately and in my personal opinion (again my opinion) its bullshit!

I, myself was surprised by a lot of the post, and we simply just wanted to share the feedback we received, everyone can make their own decisions and opinions from there. Honestly the whole UA response doesn't effect me personally, because I've owned hunting pants from them and went out with them once, and never even looked at another UA product.

 

[bigeasygator]

I'm just writing in response to people being "shocked" or "surprised" at a response like UA gave to a question from what was an unknown source to them. For those that haven't clicked on the link, it reads:

"All publicly released information regarding Under Armour, such as our mission statement, downloadable annual report, press releases, company bio, executive team, and corporate policies, is available on www.uabiz.com .Additional information is proprietary in nature and thus not available to share. We thank you for your understanding."

This is a very typical response from a large company when being asked about a topic that could be sensitive in nature to them, their business interests, or their customers. Smaller companies aren't as exposed as bigger companies, therefore bigger companies tend to play it safe. Like I said, this probably didn't go very far past the customer service department, and I would bet those people are trained to respond in this way. If you want a more reasonable response, I would be you'd have to find someone in their PR department. The question posted to them likely never made it that far up the chain. Again, I never thought anyone was "bashing" UA, just saying that this response to a question posted under their "contact us" link is not surprising at all for a company of this size. I bet you if you asked them if they support "football" they'd say the same thing.

 

[Floorguy]

I found Patagonias answer interesting.

 

[actionshooter]

That's awesome, great idea.
I actually am impressed with Patagonia's response, if you break it down that's what we all are doing bringing home healthy food. If more of the "green crowd" thought this way, we would have a lot less anti-hunters.

 

[Floorguy]

In regards to UA, if you go to UA's website and you put your mouse over Men or Women at the bottom it says "What are you into?" and hunting is listed first, with the other categories it is easy to see that they aren't listed by alphabetical order. If you click on hunting in big letters it says "Never detected" then in bold "Always Lethal". Doesn't really leave any grey area in my mind where they stand.

 

[Jason Snyder]

I didn't find any of the responses particularly troubling. If your companies mission is to produce the finest boots, climbing equipment, whatever, then it really shouldn't matter how folks use them so long as it's legal. I think Lowa's response was very well articulated.

 

[tipsntails7]

I don't have any issues with neutral responses, they are here to make money and I don't blame them for taking a stance that will alienate any potential customer. What I have a problem with is companies actively giving money or lobbying against hunting.

UA surprises me, I don't know a single non hunting specific company that spends more money on hunting. They have a show dedicated to it and sponsor at leat 3 more that I know of.

 

[cwoods]

Good info to know. Something to consider when spending hard earned money on gear. Thanks for taking the time to contact so many companies.

 

[Jason Snyder]

That's awesome, great idea.
I actually am impressed with Patagonia's response, if you break it down that's what we all are doing bringing home healthy food. If more of the "green crowd" thought this way, we would have a lot less anti-hunters.

You are correct. The biggest threat to hunting is not anti-hunters, it's non-hunters that are on the fence. Our biggest ally in maintaining hunting in North America is the vegetarian who sees hunting as a legitimate means of acquiring healthy food and managing wildlife. Just think of the influence and inroads that a person like that could create into the non-hunting community.

 

[FrankieP1988]

Definitely a good way to get people to view your blog, good job Desarae!

 

[mtnclimber]

I found Patagonias answer interesting.

Same here. I'm thought patagonia made the stance of being anti hunting a couple years back unless what i heard is totally untrue.

As far as darn tough, the only thing to be mad about concerning them is not responding. they sell there products to some great local alaskan hunting specific stores and for that i support them.

 

[tipsntails7]

You are correct. The biggest threat to hunting is not anti-hunters, it's non-hunters that are on the fence. Our biggest ally in maintaining hunting in North America is the vegetarian who sees hunting as a legitimate means of acquiring healthy food and managing wildlife. Just think of the influence and inroads that a person like that could create into the non-hunting community.

Jason I agree with that 100 percent. I also think if people got to view hunting as it is done by the people on this sight they would get an even better underastanding of why we love it so much.

 

[MattB]

As with most things in life, I will look more at what companies do rather than what they say. Meaning, a company can give an ambiguous answer to the question, but still give thousands to pro-hunting causes each year. It's much like a number of "hunter-based" organizations - many have all our interests in mind, but when you peel back the onion you will learn some only have themselves in mind.

 

[WesternBounty]

Definitely a good way to get people to view your blog, good job Desarae!

Thanks Frank! We enjoyed it! Glad you did as well!

 

[MTbowhunter36]

Enjoyed the responses from Icebreaker and Big Agnes, as they left no room for ambiguity.

 

[William Hanson (live2hunt)]

The neutral responses are weak but that's business I guess. I believe they should have backed hunters a little more but whatever. I didn't realize north face was anti though, that's a little surprising to me.

Thanks for doing this, I found it very interesting.