News - Wife of spear hunter is dumped by under armour

[TrapJack]

Under Armour, "The method used to harvest this animal was reckless and we do not condone it" it's HUGE when an industry leader says something like this. There will be wide ranging repercussions, including but not exclusive to the fact that any of their sponsored hunters that have or will spear hunt will likely get dumped too.

There are zero quotes in support of ANY part of this hunt.

but as always, they quoted antis. "Sadistic piece of human trash Josh Bowmar stabs a bear with a spear - then smiles and laughs about it dying in pain,"

Her only quote in the article regarding the news was "Under armour and the Bowmars broke up today. I'll do a blog post in a few days when I am no longer crying," Sarah Bowmar wrote on Twitter. "At least I can wear my lulu leggings again."

Your thoughts? they never sponsored him, only his wife, and they've dumped her... More proof his asinine rants and actions go far beyond himself, and effect others. His wife loses sponsorships, the province loses another hunting option, and there will likely be more dominoes to fall...
just being legal isn't enough anymore, not when you're doing things publicly (social media etc...)


https://ca.news.yahoo.com/under-armour-drops-sponsorship-wife-hunter-speared-bear-161752979--finance.html

[terrym]

Actually what I find "Assinine" is the bizarre need for people to post everything they do on YouTube. I just don't get it?

[TrapJack]

very much agreed....

SORRY< when i started writing this there wasn't already another thread. let's just use that one... no need for two.

[JBen]

It varies Terry. Some obviously post pics/vids for "likes". Some because they have a passion and want to share it. Some for fame and fortune (Instagram is the worst for this).

I have no doubt the motivator in this case was "look at me" and fame and fortune, he had UA on to. I get that, part of the deal is promote whoever but the "Look how brave we are, there's no back ups, no shotguns, I've done something no-one else has done".Makes it about "them" and not the hunt. She was the camera person, she like he, decided not to edit out some things, etc, etc.

Right decision I think. Maybe it will send a message to all the sponsored fame seekers ( See the girl who splayed the Giraffe and something else that set off a firestorm)..

[jaycee]

Actually what I find "Assinine" is the bizarre need for people to post everything they do on YouTube. I just don't get it?

[MarkB]

I can tell you whether or not ANYONE agrees to how he hunt that bear, what is dead wrong is that this person is being persecuted for doing what he had a legal right to do. If they want to say well the debate is whether he did something that was ethical or not ... I still have an issue with it ... who gets to judge whether what he did was ethical or not??? Just because someone doesn't agree with something, doesn't mean it's unethical.

Heck I don't agree with the appointment of the witch Wynne as our Premier, but I can't say that's unethical ... oh wait, maybe I can...

Anyhow back to the basics. If people have an issue with these things, then they'd better address the law, not the individual. There are many, many people hunting and take the animal for food. Most people don't know bear meat actually tastes pretty nice.

Again, the issue is people disagree with this type of hunting, and some people disagree in alcohol drinking, others disagree in swearing, others nudity, etc., etc., but so long as a person has a legal right to do something ... this public slaughtering is BAD and actually UNETHICAL. It is wrong. You are taking away people's rights, and becoming the judge and jury.

Soon we will become one Zombie nation, where if you aren't exactly like your neighbor Peter and Paul ... you will be outcast.

[smallgamer]

Soon we will become one Zombie nation, where if you aren't exactly like your neighbor Peter and Paul ... you will be outcast.

Perhaps you would like us to be a hunters zombie nation, where if you aren't exactly like your neighbour....you will be outcast? Something I posted in a discussion on facebook:

I pragmatically understand that UA has shareholders to please, many of which have no dog in this fight (pro/anti hunting, pro/anti spear hunting, etc.) but simply want to see a positive return on their investments. I heartily encourage those who oppose UAs position to counter it with a petition of their own. If indeed the demonstrated support for the Bowmans surpasses that of those opposed to them perhaps UA will reverse their decision. For what it's worth, I don't own a piece of UA apparel and never plan to. I do however understand the position the company has taken and why.

In the interest of total disclosure however, I maintain that the video in question does a disservice to the hunting community as a whole, for reasons that I have already shared. Many in our community harbour a "circle the wagons" mentality which encourages all to automatically leap to the defense of a legal hunt regardless of the circumstances and so may consider me a quisling of sorts. I can live with that because I steadfastly believe that the future of hunting hinges upon the acceptance of the activity by those who hold the middle ground, those who do not hunt and are not necessarily hugely in favour of it or hugely opposed. This video, as demonstrated by the responses from both within the hunting community and from outside, clearly impacts hunting in a negative way.

What is legal is not necessarily ethical. What is legal and ethical is not necessarily wise. While I agree that the hunt was both legal and ethical, I don't think it was wise to post the video. Five or ten percent of the population hunts passionately. Five or ten percent of the population passionately opposes it. Eighty or ninety percent of the population either has no opinion at all, or leans one way or the other. In order to maintain and grow hunting in the 21st century, it is important to keep the non-hunters (not antis) who do not oppose hunting on our side. Many of the people I am hearing from on this issue are hunters, or are non-hunters who do not oppose most forms of hunting, but have issues with either the method Josh Bowmar chose, the graphic content of the video, or his self aggrandizement.

I'm pretty sure that some of those people occupying the middle ground, along with some of those who vehemently oppose hunting in any form who took this as an opportunity to spew their venom were the vehicle driving UAs decision to drop the Bowmars. But so were the Bowmars themselves. Self-promotion can be a double-edged spear (pardon the pun), and it cost them big.

Personally, I don't blame UA for the decision they made. If the video was disconcerting to as many hunters as I see responding negatively on the various internet pages and forums, imagine how it was so to the public in general. UA is a business manufacturing and selling clothing to the public at large and has to please its shareholders. Perhaps those who are upset by UAs decision might like to create a counter petition. If UA chooses to acknowledge the dismay of part of their customer base (those upset by the Bowmars), over the dismay of those who support the Bowmars, so be it. I don't believe UA as a business opposes hunting. I believe they made a business decision based soley on this particular case. If their action is upsetting, absolutely, support another brand. But they had to play the hand they were dealt. They didn't go looking for a reason to drop the Bowmars.

Oh...regarding Josh Bowmars wife....she indeed was an author of her own fate regarding UA. Shouldn't be holding the bucket if you don't expect to get hit by some of the poop that might come your way.

[JBen]

if this were Facebook Smallgamer.
/love

[smallgamer]

Lol. Thanks.

[redd foxx]

I don't have a problem with people debating ethics at all.....as long as everyone does so with respect and common courtesy and the understanding that one will probably not change another's point of view!!