# Did Under Armours decision affect your support?



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

I'm just wondering after the whole Under Armour thing how many people they will actually lose as customers from hunting. Will you drop buying UA gear because of their decision?


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

If I had ever worn UA it might affect me but since I think that their clothing is way overpriced and wouldn't of purchased any of it anyway it really isn't going to affect me.

But they may of cut their own throats as far as hunting clothing is concerned.


----------



## CAExpat (Oct 27, 2013)

Is this about the whole bear spearing thing?


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

CAExpat said:


> Is this about the whole bear spearing thing?


Yes


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

UA is for flat brimmed hat wearing yuppies.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Fowlmouth said:


> UA is for flat brimmed hat wearing yuppies.


Yeah I agree, but I feel UA may have actually helped hunting with the younger crowd to some extent. I don't think they should have dropped sponsorship but I also can see why they did it. UA almost helped make hunting "cool" to a certain crowd and has definetly not done hunting harm. They've given to several conservation organizations and sponsored lots of hunters. It's laughable guys will burn their UA clothing as a statement but are wearing Nike who never had the balls to step in the hunting play field and support hunting in any way. UA is a multi-billion dollar worldwide company that has chosen to step into hunting when most would never touch it. I don't think UA is bad to have in the business of hunting. I've never bought UA gear, and have been happy with the KUIU I bought this year. Would like to get some FirstLite but it's hard to find it not sold out most the time. Anyway, IMO, it's a bad situation where UA had to make a business decision. They're hunting sales are nothing compared to other sales and I actually still respect UA for even stepping into hunting, although I don't personally like their clothing. Just wondering what the general response will be over them doing what they did.


----------



## Cooky (Apr 25, 2011)

CAExpat said:


> Is this about the whole bear spearing thing?


Bear spearing thing?! Is there video? Where's Goob?


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

Maybe this will help drive down the costs of that overrated and over priced stuff... What will be interesting to see, is if retailers are pressured and you see cabelas, sportsmans, bass pro's etc, pull UA from their stores.


----------



## plottrunner (Apr 3, 2008)




----------



## 3arabians (Dec 9, 2014)

Fowlmouth said:


> UA is for flat brimmed hat wearing yuppies.


Haha Yup


----------



## KineKilla (Jan 28, 2011)

I guess I missed something in that video. Guy spears bear (just like the natives or our ancestors may have done), bear dies. Guy celebrates.

Was it because he was wearing UA clothing that they are involved? That seems silly to me. For all we know he was wearing Fruit of the Loom undies and they are not being chastised.

I own some UA pants that I received as a gift and they are absolutely my favorite hunting pants to date. I tried their footwear and didn't care for the fit. 

I guess I'm the odd one that chooses my clothing or products based on how they perform for me and not what their political stance or beliefs are. I'd buy UA products if they were the right tool for the job or I'd at least consider them when choosing between different manufacturers.





** BTW: I want to slap anyone seen wearing a flat brimmed hat **


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

I'm not a flat brimmed hat fan either, but as stated previously UA made a business decision. I have some of their gear, and really like the way it performs, so I won't shy away from purchasing products in the future over this. 

In the social media world that we live in, UA and their agents (sponsored individuals) should have foreseen the backlash and controversy this video would produce. I think it is awesome that this guy killed a bear with a spear, but it maybe should have been saved and stored in the film archive.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

My question for those that don't like the spear hunting is, what difference is it from archery hunting? After all a spear is just a large hand thrown arrow. What if the anti's went after someone that figured out how to attach a camera to a arrow without it affecting its flight? 

UA just took the easy way out in my opinion.


----------



## Wyo2ut (Aug 2, 2016)

I love under armour...clothing, shoes, hats, etc. I have many UA shirts, several pairs of shoes, UA pants, and even a UA hat. I won't stop buying any of it. I don't care what their stance on some incident is or was not.


----------



## Raptorman (Aug 18, 2009)

I have a couple of UA items, they are fine. I only buy them when they are on clearance. Sometimes you can find some good deals, other than that they seem higher priced than most of my stuff. I don't think I will seek UA clothing from now on but if it is on the clearance rack, I would have a hard time walking away.


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

CPAjeff said:


> I'm not a flat brimmed hat fan either, but as stated previously UA made a business decision. I have some of their gear, and really like the way it performs, so I won't shy away from purchasing products in the future over this.
> 
> In the social media world that we live in, UA and their agents (sponsored individuals) should have foreseen the backlash and controversy this video would produce. I think it is awesome that this guy killed a bear with a spear, but it maybe should have been saved and stored in the film archive.


I'm confused as to why it should have been stored in the film archive? That spear throw was cleaner, quicker, and as ethical as the majority of all archery, muzzleloader and rifle shots taken. That bear died quickly and was much cleaner than 90 percent of the archery shots I see on tv where guys shoot too far back or too high, and where the animal takes much longer to expire..... If you look at what the anti's were upset at, they were upset at the actual act of killing a bear. The anti's saw an opportunity, and the more people cave, like UA, or UA sponsored hunters like Jim Shockey, remain silent, the more opportunity opens up for the anti's. UA should have let this minor "fake" uproar blow over. With the logic of UA, every arhery hunt should be banned.


----------



## bekins24 (Sep 22, 2015)

I like the way that UA gear fits me. I think it is ridiculous how they handled the issue, I agree it was probably the easy way out for them instead of standing up for the hunters. I definitely wouldn't be burning my gear even if I was strongly against them now.


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

utahgolf said:


> I'm confused as to why it should have been stored in the film archive? That spear throw was cleaner, quicker, and as ethical as the majority of all archery, muzzleloader and rifle shots taken. That bear died quickly and was much cleaner than 90 percent of the archery shots I see on tv where guys shoot too far back or too high, and where the animal takes much longer to expire..... If you look at what the anti's were upset at, they were upset at the actual act of killing a bear. The anti's saw an opportunity, and the more people cave, like UA, or UA sponsored hunters like Jim Shockey, remain silent, the more opportunity opens up for the anti's. UA should have let this minor "fake" uproar blow over. With the logic of UA, every arhery hunt should be banned.


I completely agree that the spear throw was "cleaner, quicker, and as ethical as the majority of all archery, muzzleloader, and rifle shots taken." As you said, the anti's were upset at the actual act of killing a bear, but the nature of the hunt added fuel to their fire - the animal was left overnight, suffering as some anti's are screaming about, which is not true; and a weapon of barbaric nature (in some people's eyes) was used - which doesn't make much sense to me, because the purpose of a weapon is to cause damage and destruction.

A couple days ago, I attended a meeting about professional responsibility and the portrayal of that responsibility in the public eye. This exact example was brought up with various views from both sides, and my personal view is this - the hunter crowd supports the hunter, UA did what they did in an effort to "save face" and appease the anti hunters. But what about the people who are neutral, how do they view this?

Our liberal media does a fantastic job with spreading a story like this, with some added fallacies, and some of these stories send those neutralists over to the anti side. So my statement about them keeping it in the film archive was to protect UA and hunters from the injustice that would come about by those who are too ignorant to listen and ignore the facts and how that would swing the views of those who are currently neutral.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

The guy who speared the bear is Josh Bowmar. He is a professional body builder (physique division).

He and his wife met through fitness, but Josh showed her hunting and they both have a deep passion for hunting (bow/spear only). They have done a great job building a social media platform, which led to his wife Sarah getting a UA sponsorship. Josh was an avid supporter of UA, but was actually never sponsored by them. He did TONS of free promo for them. This included their athletic lines since both Josh and Sarah are competitors.



I know the bowmars, and a few of the UA athletes. This incident is very unfortunate. Josh was the hunter, but because of the backlash it was Sarah whose sponsorship was dropped. The part that is most frustrating, is that UA came out with a statement that said in part:

"supports hunting that is conducted in compliance with applicable federal, state and local laws and hunting practices that ensure a responsible and safe harvest of the animal"


They made it out that the hunt was not legal or ethical. Josh is a monster of an athlete, and is amazing with a spear. This wasn't just on a whim, he had prepared for this for a long time. He had called the outfitter as well as Canada's wildlife management (whatever it is called) to verify the legality of the hunt. He did all the prep both legally and ethically. The fact is, that bear only went 60 yards. That large of a spear, in the vitals, is all one could hope for. Arrowed bears go that far or further. These are the same people that say give the animal a chance... well being on the ground in the forest with only a spear and no follow up weapon is a pretty fair chance isn't it?


The thing that people objected was "leaving the animal to suffer all night". They are uneducated on what bumping an animal can do and worse, what being in the Canadian wilderness at night with a wounded bear who could be alive and angry means. Josh also celebrated. Well yeah, he speared a big mature boar (the ones they are trying to population control). It was exciting.

I also didn't like Cameron Hanes coming out and saying the video never should have been posted. I knew he sold out when he did a dodge hunting photo contest that didn't allow weapons or dead animals... like, what? People post the CRAZIEST stuff online, and there are TV shows glorifying stupidity and violence, but he can't post a hunt?



Anyways, I am biased obviously but I hope this provided some additional context for you guys. At the end of the day, under armour is overpriced and really entered the hunting market to gouge hunters. They aren't a company built around hunting, so they of course won't have allegiance to hunters. The decision isn't a surprise. This has always kept me from buying, except one outfit I got at 20% of cost from a sponsored hunter lol. I won't pass that with any brand! But I prefer a company who is all in on hunting. A company ran by hunters, who are completely invested. Not a company who saw Sitka charge $600 for pants and a shirt and said "fire up the camo press!".


----------



## 30-06-hunter (Sep 22, 2013)

I think I own a UA Utes sweatshirt....


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

CPAjeff said:


> So my statement about them keeping it in the film archive was to protect UA and hunters from the injustice that would come about by those who are too ignorant to listen and ignore the facts and how that would swing the views of those who are currently neutral.


I think we agree on principle about the ethics. But if things like this bear kill that are cleaner and more ethical than a majority of shots taken with any weapon. Than all hunting pics or videos should never be posted or shared anywhere. and I am disappointed with Under armour hunters who preach so much about standing together like Jim Shockey does or how his daughter Eva, goes on fox and other shows and talks about never apologizing for being a hunter, etc. Yet they remain silent on this. If they didn't preach so much about standing up against anti's, than I wouldn't care about their self preservation mind set they have about future earnings. It's not the end of the world or anything, just disappointing to see it.


----------



## hondodawg (Mar 13, 2013)

Doesn't UA have that huge ranch out of Morgan? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## willfish4food (Jul 14, 2009)

UA is a sports apparel business first outdoor clothing line somewhere down the line. They made a business decision to PO the hunters instead of the animal lovers that buy their other product lines. I don't agree with it, but I also don't answer to share holders. 

These types of incidents are all about perception. There was nothing wrong with what this hunter did ethically or legally, but how the media/anti-hunting groups spin it makes the difference. Anti-hunters will always be anti and will argue their point regardless of how illogical their argument proves out. As someone else said, it's unfortunate that uneducated statements that are made as if they were fact (like, "the bear suffered all night"), will likely turn some neutral people to the dark side of anti-hunters. 

To answer the question, I don't buy UA cause it's too expensive. But if they had a clearly superior product that I could afford, I'd probably still buy it. If your product consumption is based solely on if the company's ideals line up with your own, either you have very conflicting ideas of your own, or you won't be buying much.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

I don't know anything about the issue....


I have a UA digi camo sweatshirt that I've been wearing hunting for about 10 years now. It still looks brand new. It was worth every cent of the $45 I paid for it!

I've been dealing with plantar fasciitis since early spring. I've worn Nike tennis shoes since I was in middle school. I bought a pair of UA shoes, and my feet have never felt better!

My UA golf shirts never wrinkle. They always look clean and bright. They don't shrink. They don't "pill". They don't snag.

I only buy UA off the clearance rack, and the price isn't any higher than the Nike, Columbia, or any other brand selling polyester / spandex clothing.

UA? I'll keep buying it. Just like I'll keep buying Levi's. How many of you gun-toting hicks have a pair of Levi's jeans?


----------



## NVDuckin (Apr 18, 2016)

I have a decent amount of their stuff and I will definitely buy less of it now.

The main reason being that they don't really have a unique product. Everything they make, a competitor also makes something similar so I might as well use my dollars for companies that support my interests. Exactly the same reason why I would rather go to Scheel's than REI.


----------



## hossblur (Jun 15, 2011)

Critter said:


> My question for those that don't like the spear hunting is, what difference is it from archery hunting? After all a spear is just a large hand thrown arrow. What if the anti's went after someone that figured out how to attach a camera to a arrow without it affecting its flight?
> 
> UA just took the easy way out in my opinion.


Your ancestors didn't stick a go pro on their spear, dance around like a jackwagon then post it on You Tube to prove they were the ultimate alpha male. Pretty much has nothing to do with the weapon and everything to do with the "I want to be a Kardashian" aspect of it.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

hossblur said:


> Your ancestors didn't stick a go pro on their spear, dance around like a jackwagon then post it on You Tube to prove they were the ultimate alpha male. Pretty much has nothing to do with the weapon and everything to do with the "I want to be a Kardashian" aspect of it.


No, but I am sure that they did a lot of bragging and dancing when they returned to the central camp. Not to mention drawing pictures of their exploits all over the rocks that were near them.


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

I think I have one UA golf shirt that I bought on sale.

I do like their "Ridge Reaper" hunting show on the outdoor channel.


----------



## mjensen1313 (Jul 29, 2015)

I didn't know anything about this UA until I pulled up this thread, that being said IMO:

Spearing a great boar - way to go, not sure I want to ever be on the throwing end of only a spear that close to a boar, big cat, etc...

Talk about giving the animal the best chance of survival!

The video: who doesn't get excited when shooting an animal? I haven't had enough practice with my bow to justify going out on the archery...yet so I'm still shooting my .308. I still get excited when I harvest an animal. Do I post videos, no and don't plan on ever, but that is just me. I take a couple pictures, and thank God for the success.

I recently watched a video of a guy who shot 12-13 times at a bull elk at a range he probably should not have (he states he had never practiced to 800 yards), hitting the bull several times in the hind quarters, stomach, rear legs, etc... before the bull finally laid down to die.

So which is more ethical....spearing an animal once, or shooting at a distance beyond your known ability 15 times?

UA is pandering to those who do not like/accept hunting in particular with their decision. His wife (whom their contract was with) should not have been punished (lost her sponsorship) for her husband's actions.

As for supporting UA going forward; as said in previous comments, I have a few items from UA. They are similar in price to others, I think everyone is over-priced... I try to buy things when they are on sale. Will probably buy more UA in the future (on sale/clearance). Most likely will never think of this video while strolling through Cabela's...

Can't wait until we get out for my sons' and cousins' any-bull hunt next week!


----------



## hossblur (Jun 15, 2011)

Critter said:


> No, but I am sure that they did a lot of bragging and dancing when they returned to the central camp. Not to mention drawing pictures of their exploits all over the rocks that were near them.


As you might have guessed I'm not much of a fan of the vast majority of the wanna be reality stars from the hunting sports, so I will just leave it here. As for UA, they werent a hunting company to start so why anyone is suprised by their actions I don't get it. Personally I try to buy all Kings stuff, hunting company, and LOCAL. But, I never have bought into the hype. With 3 kids and a mortgage, I usually buy my hunting gear in Feb. when its on clearance, or off Kings closeout website. In fact, most of my stuff came from when they moved out of Sanpete and dumped their inventory. Like most of you, I wear Old Navy knock offs, my boys wear UA because its cool. I am more likely to boycott hat companies for making flat brims than UA.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

I don't have any Under Armour but I do have a flat-brimmed hat, a frog spear, and a fish spear. 

thank you


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

Lol at all the flat-brimmed hat hate. I don't wear flat brim hats and I think they look ridiculous but it reminds me of when I was a kid riding in the truck with my old rancher great grandpa and he would see people wearing shorts. He would ask me, "you don't wear those silly looking shorts do you?" The vast majority of the population wears shorts now, even people much older than I am, but apparently it seemed ridiculous to my great grandpa who was born in 1903. I really don't like flat brim hats, but I think flat brim hats to us are like what shorts were to my great grandpa. Just a new fashion trend that isn't what we were used to so we don't like it haha. A flat brim hat argument broke out on a hunting page on Facebook I'm a member of and I made a couple anti-flat brim comments all in good fun just to take the pi$$. It didn't take long and I had a couple teenagers screaming at me and probably getting spittle all over their computer screens.


----------



## BG1 (Feb 15, 2013)

Not buying UA because of this incident is just silly. It's like not buying the best truck (GM) because it is "Obama Motors" or "Government Motors". Who cares. I'm not going to jeopardize comfort or quality to make a stand.


----------

