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

[tstowater]

I read the North Face response and potentially the Patagonia response as negative to hunting. I don't think that UA can be questioned, especially with the hunting lines that they carry/produce and the hunting shows that they sponsor, ie: Under Armour's Ridge Reeper. Not a big fan of UA gear, just making a point. I really can't believe that Kenetrek responded the way it did, completely lame from a company that was started to make hunting boots. Is that an indication of what is happening in Bozeman these days??

 

[Jason Snyder]

I read the North Face response and potentially the Patagonia response as negative to hunting. I don't think that UA can be questioned, especially with the hunting lines that they carry/produce and the hunting shows that they sponsor, ie: Under Armour's Ridge Reeper. Not a big fan of UA gear, just making a point. I really can't believe that Kenetrek responded the way it did, completely lame from a company that was started to make hunting boots. Is that an indication of what is happening in Bozeman these days??

As MattB pointed out, actions speak louder than words. if you feel Kenetrek's response is weak, then maybe you should look at what they are doing to support hunting.

http://www.conservemontana.org/cont...into-montana-backcountry/cnm09474973B6F73CB34

I think supporting Backcountry Hunters/Anglers and the Wild Sheep Foundations speaks a lot more volume than a generic response on the internet.

 

[dreamingbig]

I gave it a quick read and took it as a lot of auto responses from the companies there. My guess is that the email was never
Routed to the right person by some of them. For example, UA response....

 

[mmw194287]

Just my two cents FWIW--much of this has already been said by others.

I read the North Face response as not anti-hunting or pro-hunting. It was probably typed by an entry level 22 year old employee or intern (three sentences...each of which has an error in grammar, capitalization, or syntax) and really doesn't mean or say anything. It's not like these questions were posed to the owners of the company or in a meeting of the BoD--the email was likely only seen by some newly hired PR or CS type who has a list of things that they are permitted to say about the company, its mission, etc. Some here are reading a lot into the omissions and avoidances in these emails...I read the omissions and avoidances as your average entry level employee trying to get through their day without writing something that could land them in hot water. Employees at smaller companies like Big Agnes (where the CR rep knows the hobbies of the warehouse manager) are obviously going to feel able to speak more freely.

I see the most truth in the responses that essentially say "We don't care one way or the other. Our shareholders want us to make money. We produce things for people to buy so that we can make money. People with diverse interests buy those things, so we are happy to sell to people with diverse interests." If some company wants to sell me a bag of freeze-dried stir fry or a rain jacket, they don't care how I use it, and they aren't actively supporting or campaigning against hunting, I'm not sure how I can hold that against them. Some business models benefit from a greater degree of political advocacy (firearm manufacturers, etc.), but most don't.

There are certainly committed anti-hunting organizations and individuals out there, but I would venture to say that most people and most businesses don't think about the future of hunting one way or the other. If someone chooses to spend their money with or support a company that explicitly engages with these questions, by all means do so and more power to them. However, I think that writing off--or even showing contempt for-- companies that aren't zealously pro-hunting in a short response email is probably counter productive in the long run. Doing so won't make them more concerned for the future of hunting. It will probably have the opposite effect.

As many have said before, here and in other venues, it's the indifferent non-hunting public (companies included) who ultimately control the future of our sport and with whom hunters should attempt to build trust, mutual respect, etc.--to my mind, characterizing neutral parties as adversarial only serves to alienate the hunting public from that indifferent non-hunting public. And ultimately, if the small number of backcountry hunters who buy high performance gear decides to boycott an indifferent multi-million dollar corporation like the North Face, it's not going to marginalize TNF, it's going to marginalize the voice and presence of those hunters in the broader outdoor community. Just my opinion...

 

[tstowater]

Sorry that I am not as forgiving, but I'm guessing the NRA wouldn't give a high rating to some of the responses (maybe why they were perceived as neutral). I would be curious to see how the same companies that gave the "neutral" responses would have dealt with the question if posed in a way that the company would know that it came from a hunter. I am not advocating boycotting any of the neutral companies as I don't consider that productive and as pointed out earlier, our voice wouldn't make a difference anyway to some of the large companies. As to Kenetrek, it is quite obvious that they are hunters so why don't they just say that and be proud of it as we all should. I know that they have products that are used by non hunters which is perfectly fine.

I can choose to buy from who I want as long as options remain and this is a free country. Maybe this whole exercise goes to show that the people you put in contact with the public are important, especially in light of all the nit-picking that forums and social media do.

 

[Ceby7]

Sorry that I am not as forgiving, but I'm guessing the NRA wouldn't give a high rating to some of the responses (maybe why they were perceived as neutral).

What does a NRA rating have anything to do with this? The NRA is not a hunting organization, they are a gun rights group. (I was told this directly from the NRA in a response to a question I asked them) BIG difference!

 

[Jason Snyder]

What does a NRA rating have anything to do with this? The NRA is not a hunting organization, they are a gun rights group. (I was told this directly from the NRA in a response to a question I asked them) BIG difference!

You mean like Denny Rehberg and Debbie Barrett?

 

[Beendare]

What does a NRA rating have anything to do with this? The NRA is not a hunting organization, they are a gun rights group. (I was told this directly from the NRA in a response to a question I asked them) BIG difference!

The NRA is primarily gun rights but they do get involved in preserving hunters rights in some cases. I know they are in a couple lawsuits right now in that regard along with SCI.

Re North Face; this is part of a HUGE company- VF Corp in which NF is a small cog- thus the PC response. VF corp owns Wrangler, Lee, Smart Wool and many other lines of casual clothing

 

[Piscatory_4]

Most of the neutral response companies do not make items i would be buying for hunting.

Maybe you could have sent other emails saying essentially the same thing but identifying yourself as a hunter, then a hiker, or a birdwatcher, etc. and see what would be the differences their responses.

 

[6mm Remington]

Funny how when you want a simple yes or know, most waffle a lot! I also try and purchase USA made products when I can, especially if they are equal or better quality than the competition, even if I have to pay a bit more!

 

[bobhunts]

Thanks for doing this and taking the time to post it! I do believe Marmot is now part of the Columbia family. Try asking them what there stance is? I doubt it would be good.

 

[SHTF]

Great article. You did a great job. I surfed your website and your wife Deserea could be Becca's sister. They look a lot like. I had to double take for a minute there. I was shocked by UA's response for sure. I believe the canned responses are a product of not knowing which side of the fence you fell on so they played it safe.

Excellent work. and Subscribed to your blog.

 

[mfolch]

I thought these comments were entirely bland and predictable: anywhere from neutral to supportive, and in general the larger the company the more neutral. That's what businesses do--they sell to anyone who buys, regardless of political, religious, or other kind of affiliation. And I expect most companies to deflect any questions that might try to get them to comment on potentially controversial social issues.

On a related note, I don't understand why hunters seem to feel endangered. To read these responses--especially the ones from people/companies who did not want to offend either their hunting or non-hunting customers--as somehow condemning or hostile to hunting reveals, in my opinion, an incomprehensible level of paranoia. Judging by some of these responses, it seems as though hunters are obsessively on patrol for any comment that might be read or misread, contorted out of its original meaning, and transformed into a full-on assault on every hunter on earth. I live in one of the most liberal, anti-gun places in the country, and almost every hippy vegan I know thinks hunting (not poaching) is pretty cool. And everyone who has a summer or weekend home nearby wishes there were more hunters to keep the deer population under control.

 

[ben h]

I think most of the companies contacted should be neutral, because they simply make gear that is used for whatever you want to do in the outdoors and not necessarily hunting specific. I do think hunters spend more on gear than most and tend to buy better gear, but compared to non-hunters, our numbers must not be that high. I'm sort of surprised Patagonia's response could be construed as pro-hunting, but the response was clearly written by someone who doesn't do it, but I'd put Arcteryx and North Face as more negative than neutral.

 

[MattB]

I think most of the companies contacted should be neutral, because they simply make gear that is used for whatever you want to do in the outdoors and not necessarily hunting specific. I do think hunters spend more on gear than most and tend to buy better gear, but compared to non-hunters, our numbers must not be that high. I'm sort of surprised Patagonia's response could be construed as pro-hunting, but the response was clearly written by someone who doesn't do it, but I'd put Arcteryx and North Face as more negative than neutral.

I'd think the fact that Patagonia directly contributes to hunting groups would be construed as the company being pro-hunting, regardless of how we interpret one comment made by one person who works for the company. I welcome people shooting holes in this logic.

 

[ben h]

Matt, I haven't a clue where Patagonia contributes, but I do know their stuff is in my pack, because it's good, independent of their stance (and has been for the last 25 years, God I'm getting old). Good to hear they do support some of our efforts though, but that doesn't surprise me having met Yvon Chouinard years ago who founded both Patagonia and Black Diamond. I thought their comment was pro hunting and would not have cast it in the neutral column, but that's my interpretation. These companies do need to be sensitive to both sides, so the comments are not surprising to me, and I don't think that means "anti".

 

[Az wildcat]

I feel like most of these were neutral which is not a bad thing. I did really like Big Agnes response though!

 

[Gobbler36]

Makes me think about selling my kenetrek boots, they are so dang comfy tho!
that's why I love First Lite, there is no guessing who they support.
Good study

 

[Jason Snyder]

Makes me think about selling my kenetrek boots, they are so dang comfy tho!
that's why I love First Lite, there is no guessing who they support.
Good study

Maybe before you sell them you should do your due diligence and read about all of the groups that Kenetrek supports, that directly benefits you as a hunter.

After reading this whole thread and seeing responses like this, it's no wonder some companies don't respond.

 

[Murdy]

After refusing to endorse a Democratic candidate for the Senate, Michael Jordan reportedly explained, "Republicans buy shoes too." Any company that would alienate a number of its customers just isn't good at business.

Personally, I only avoid companies that actively support causes I am opposed to.