im ok with what research says, its how we all hunted for years before fancy camo. , and i smoke. still doesnt seem to bother them lol
Printable View
No point. Stupid marketing gimmick.
We fart, we sweat, we defecate, we urinate, we sit around campfires, smoke, breathe and burp, drive vehicles and pack all those scents around with us.
That's why we hunt INTO the wind.
And that's also why we get busted when the wind turns.
While camo does nothing for scent control and movement, I do believe it does have some merit. I prefer a larger blockier pattern as opposed to the fine detail camo that looks loke a solid color from 20 feet away.
ASAT camo should be the most universal camo there is. https://www.asatcamo.com/
Truck seat cover camouflage works well for lots of hunters
Whatever camo you decide, please consider not buying UnderArmor. They are antihunting:
http://www.alloutdoor.com/2016/09/08...-anti-hunting/
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...turning-favor/
I like their gear - great quality, but will not buy their stuff anymore. I have their hoodies, t-shirts, etc., that I am not going to burn - I paid for them big bucks, but no UA for me anymore. Unless they change their mind.
I know this might be an old news, but I just found out about it yesterday browsing internet.
They aren't anti-hunting. It seems to me that they made a corporate decision that one of their sponsored athletes related to someone who harvested a bear legally (although "ethically" remains in question) but in a manner that raised significant questions as to methodology was not someone they wanted to be associated with. There are two big parts of this:
1. A corporation is a money making endeavour. They are not obligated to take "a stand for all hunters" or the like (especially on an issue that generated so much controversy) if it's going to hurt their bottom line. They have the option as to who they sponsor and, just because something was legal, it doesn't mean that they have to agree with it. We see that in many industries when a company sponsors an athlete, a celebrity, etc and then the relevant person spouts off on something that hurts the company's reputation and dumps the person as a result.
2. There's a lot of talk about whether it was an ethical hunt and some of the questions raised surround the fact that if Mr. Bowmar was so shocked at his success. Additionally, his elation was considered to be in bad taste by some. Those are factors that UA has to consider when putting their brand out there to be embraced.
I'm not commenting personally on my views in relation to the above (I found the video distasteful and found the fact that he seemed so uncertain that it would go well to be of concern...but it was legal so I won't hang him for it), but UA has obligations beyond to the hunting community...particularly fringe hunters that could put their brand into disrepute.
Shareholders and boards have very strong feelings about that type of thing.
UA is certainly NOT anti hunting.
whatever beer stained BBQ covered clothing you happen to roll out of your cot wearing seems like the camo of the day on some of my hunting trips lol.
AgSilver and todbartell thanks for your responses and AgSilver, i particularly thank you for your response. The points you made are legit and I agree with all of them. I admit I was trolling a bit, but wanted to bring awareness to hunters being diligent when they "vote" with their dollars. I am still going to buy UA when i need something, as I like to buy quality gear and i don't buy hunting clothing only, but i will monitor UA more closely starting now. I know company's history and it is positive one, but everything changes.
There are companies that i dissagree with their policies, so i simply don't buy their products.
AgSilver, I agree that company has a right to drop whoever represents them. We had a case like that with Spook Span???, who shot big deer our of season (don't remember details). He lost some sponsors and if I was sponsoring him, i would also drop him.
AgSilver, one more comment, any company has obligations toward their shareholders, but also toward their buyers (which might not be that obvious). This is how it is harder (not impossible) to find these days companies that are not socially or environmentally concious (at least on the paper). Why has this happend? Because pressure from buyers.
Good topic and i just hope my poor attempt has brought some light on the issue of buying stuff from companies that support hunting. 10-10.