bullskin
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,348
I have no particular interest in Under Armor and, frankly, don't hear anyone I know complaining that they let the Bowmar's advertising contract go. But some in the press seem intent on stirring this pot, claiming that Under Armor's rejection of the Bowmar's equates to a rejection of hunters in general. I would be curious to hear what MM members think about this.
I suppose most of you are out, actually hunting, rather than reading the bloody paper and could not care less. I don't blame you, but my tag isn't good until late September and so I have time to kill. My own opinion is that UA's rejection of the Bowmars is not a rejection of hunting--it is simply the rejection of poor taste. It appears that their only motivation to spear a bear was to have something to post for their peeps, and grandstanding is not hunting. In fact, it is the very antithesis of hunting, which is to establish one's connection with the world--a very sober and personal action which the Bowman's and too many TV "hunters" make a mockery of. This is a very poor example to set, and the sooner the real hunting community realizes this, the better. Under Armor has done the hunting industry a favor, or so I believe.
Which leads to my question. How many of you think that television hunting programs are hurting rather than helping our sport over the long-term? Is Ted Nugent, as a spokesman for hunters, as ridiculous as Donald Trump as a spokesman for America? (Criticism not to be confused with support for Hillary Clinton, who is an absurdity of equal stature)
I suppose most of you are out, actually hunting, rather than reading the bloody paper and could not care less. I don't blame you, but my tag isn't good until late September and so I have time to kill. My own opinion is that UA's rejection of the Bowmars is not a rejection of hunting--it is simply the rejection of poor taste. It appears that their only motivation to spear a bear was to have something to post for their peeps, and grandstanding is not hunting. In fact, it is the very antithesis of hunting, which is to establish one's connection with the world--a very sober and personal action which the Bowman's and too many TV "hunters" make a mockery of. This is a very poor example to set, and the sooner the real hunting community realizes this, the better. Under Armor has done the hunting industry a favor, or so I believe.
Which leads to my question. How many of you think that television hunting programs are hurting rather than helping our sport over the long-term? Is Ted Nugent, as a spokesman for hunters, as ridiculous as Donald Trump as a spokesman for America? (Criticism not to be confused with support for Hillary Clinton, who is an absurdity of equal stature)
