I don't care if they killed it with a Buick. Who are they to determine ethics???!!!

For that hunt or in general? Ethics are a personal thing.

Exactly.

I am not overly concerned with UA dropping them or the use of the spear. The term "ethics" is used every time there is any form of hunting controversy and in most cases it remains the hunters only defense. However it has become some what blurred and distorted.
If you wish to hunt a bear with a spear and be the only one to of achieved it then ok, but ethically you would have the safety of someone with a rifle or shotgun to kill the bear should something not go according to plan....like spearing it in the gut. Ethics are for the animals we hunt, not to appease the antis.

Ethics. What some are calling unethical is probably better described as inhumane, but that word has an even worse connotation that we all want to avoid.Where I grew up, it's considered unethical to deer hunt over bait, but that's the way it's done generally in Texas. Everybody's farts stink worse than our own.

Is sport hunting ethical? Could you define sport hunting?

Legal does not equal ethical. Plenty of things are legal, but not ethical.

Why would anyone want to kill a bear with a spear? Ok, it may be legal, ethical is questionable. But there's no denying it's controversial & could be portrayed in a very negative light. I don't even think the majority of hunters would defend it. What possible positive outcome could there be?

If your Joe Blow & spear hunting pigs (pests) that's 1 thing. If you have company sponsors, & you do something extremely controversial, don't be surprised when the sponsor drops you.

Exactly it's a personal thing. UA's statement puts the entire hunt as unethical

UA has the right to do what they did. Others have the right to react accordingly by speaking out/not buying their stuff.

Happens all the time over all sorts of issues...

But that's just it. Some hunters called using dogs for Bear hunting and lion hunting as unethical. By using are own words it's now banned in a few states.

In the grand scheme a 6" wide slice through vital organs is more ethical then a 1.5" slice. A pastru with a broadhead is more ethical then a non-passtru, simply interms of recover ability, so guess now we need to ban traditional bows. I can go on and on. Do I want to hunt a bear with a spear, no I simple don't have the time to become efficient with it, but why would I limit someone from doing it.

I bow hunt elk and mulies only. I like the physical challenge of it. But I'm not going to condone rifle hunters that hunt those to species. We as hunters pick the hunt we want to experience, by our own self imposed limitations

You see hogs as vermin so it's ok for hogs, but people in England etc don't see them as vermin

Absolutely. But they choose to word it as Unethical. They could of said it doesn't support the image UA wants for UA. The later would of been a business reason, the unethical is a pointed political response, that deams a legal way of hunting as shameful

It's not the first time, nor the last time a company will try to sway the values debate. Target on the transgender bathroom deal, Chick-Fil-A on the gays, on and on and on....

It's a business decision - they are betting more will applaud their decision than get upset over it. Whether or not it's a good business decision time will tell. I doubt it will affect them much one way or the other.

Agree but unfortunately they turned thier back on a segment they sell to based off the whining of another segment.

It's unfortunate they made the statement they did, but they did.

It's more for guys who don't hunt in a heated box blind. I have some of their gear and a waterproof jacket I use for duck hunting. It's light weight and it works

I haven't made up my mind if I will purchase their gear or not based on this incident. However I will say their gear, while expensive, is quality.


People just need to stop video taping everything and putting it on YouTube. Videos, texts and cell phone cameras get more people in trouble than anything else. If that guy wouldn't have video taped it none of this would be happening

But then how will the world know how incredibly awesome we think we are? Look at me, I'm so awesome. It's a beating.

This.

I was never cool enough or had enough money to wear UA. I was at 10X last week in Ft. Worth looking at the new products for this year and they are making the exact same garment for half the price and they are a Texas company...Seems to be a no brainer.
Adios,
Gary

I think UA handled this the wrong way.

I also think the hunter did as well. There is a good reason if you hunt with a weapon with an outfitter you have to demonstrate proficiency before being allowed to hunt shooting your rifle or bow at the target. As was mentioned earlier in this thread the ethics part of the equation should always side on giving every effort available to try to make a clean kill without the animal suffering.

As an outfitter I can think of no demonstration you could show me that I would be OK with you trying to kill a bear with that weapon, knowing all the things that could go wrong that end up with a shot where the animal suffers.

IMO this was an ego driven hunt plain and simple, which I am fine with as long as the animal doesn't have to suffer so you can stroke your ego.

Matadors have been spearing bulls in Spain for centuries for sport. Cattle are domesticated stock even "wild" bulls. I wonder if any of them wear underarmer.

not a fan of the spear either but would like to see him take that bear on with a bowie knife (that bear would probably run off, needs to move up to a grizzly).

Who are they to determine ethics? Really???? They are the company doing the sponsoring. So it is like a job. So long as you are out there representing their company, if you do something they feel does not reflect well on their company, then you may get canned. Sponsorships like this one are all about public image. Look at what happened to Brian Lochte. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-ryan-lochte-problem-for-olympic-endorsements/

Yes, ethics are a personal thing, in this case, personal to the company the company and the company's bottom line.



Blame the tool and not the people? That is the same sort of logic gun grabbers use. That isn't good logic. However, if you are going that far, you might as well just blame the internet. People get into trouble for discussing and often posting proof of their activities on the internet. They do it in emails and in social media such as hunting forums, facebook, twitter, youtube, etc.

People get into trouble because they do stupid stuff, illegal, unethical, and/or in this case, that their sponsor does not feel reflects well on the company.

That the event got documented is exactly what you would expect to happen. As hunters representing UA, they document their hunting and promote UA in the process. They would not have had sponsorship without documenting their hunting and sharing it on social media.



They may or may not wear it, but you can bet that UA doesn't sponsor any matadors. https://www.underarmour.com/en-us/ua-roster

Who are they to determine ethics? Really???? They are the company doing the sponsoring. So it is like a job. So long as you are out there representing their company, if you do something they feel does not reflect well on their company, then you may get canned. Sponsorships like this one are all about public image. Look at what happened to Brian Lochte.

Yes, ethics are a personal thing, in this case, personal to the company the company and the company's bottom line.



Just bringing some light humor to the heated battlegrounds.

The whole world is about self promotion these days.

Even Jesus healed and then said "go forth and tell no one". People should practice that discretion more these days

I feel the same way. Without knowing more about this specific hunter's history hard for me to make a judgment on this one video.

But...Corporations only make decisions for one reason... the bottom line. The didn't do this to appease antis or make light of hunters. The did this to ensure profitability... nothing more nothing less. There are no bleeding heart liberals when they are looking at P&L statements with investors.