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...
