Previous Post
Next Post


(This post originally appeared at Joyner Outdoor Media and is reprinted here with permission.)

By Mike Joyner

In recent news we learned that the outdoor clothing company Under Armour dropped their sponsorship of accomplished bow hunter Sarah Bowmar. That in and of itself is not particularly newsworthy as sponsorships, company reps, and hunting shows can and do change for any number of reasons. There are, however, significant reasons and circumstances that all of my readers should be concerned about this.

I’ll recommend that you can take actions as well as make your collective voices heard. Casual reading of so called news reports make it difficult to dissect the story, as much of the reporting is emotional or conducted by reporters who are unfamiliar with the specifics of bear hunting, or the relevant history of hunting implements. I will list a few things in bullet form to make it a bit clearer as to the circumstance and relevant facts of the matter.

  • Sarah Bowmar accompanied her husband Josh Bowmar on a legal bear hunt in Alberta Canada. Both Josh and Sarah are accomplished hunters, athletes. Josh holds All American Honors in javelin throwing as well as other track and field events.
  • Using a spear in the Canadian province is legal, and given Josh’s background, ethical as well. As with all hunting implements, training, proficiency, and accuracy are key factors.
  • Josh harvested a seven-foot black bear using a spear which was filmed by Sarah. Josh’s well-placed spear resulted in a very quick and ethical kill. It was estimated the bear traveled 60 yards after being hit. I’ll stick my neck out and state that bow hunters and gun hunters would be more than happy with such a short recovery of a large game animal.
  • The video footage was published online, resulting in a huge negative response from the anti-hunting community, complete with all the ignorance and emotional nonsense we as sportsmen have come to expect from their ranks.
  • An online petitionwas created and with a little more than 4.3K signatures, Under Armour was moved to drop their relationship with Sarah. Josh was not sponsored by the company, but was a supporter and fan of their products as he has publicly stated.

As is typical in these controversies, there were all the death threats, horrible dialog, and displays of ignorance that have become so common with small-minded keyboard warriors on Facebook and Twitter. Such threats, aggressive language, and bravado, rarely surfaces in face-to-face meetings. It’s my intention to spend little time with that, as it is futile dealing with that kind of mindset and the fairy tale liberal views of the world.

What I am concerned with is the lack of “I got your back” unity we need to have to prevail in the court of public opinion. In reading some of the commentary in the hunting communities, it’s clear we as a group can be accused of elitism, and eating our own. It’s the same-ol’ same-ol’ tired stuff, with archers embracing compound bows, inline vs. flintlock muzzleloaders, shotgun vs. rifle. It happens with every new or so-old-it-is-new-again implement and we’re seeing it we now with spears.

I’ll be up front here; spear hunting isn’t my thing. Images of me in a loin cloth stalking through the woods is scary, and shouldn’t be viewed by small children or adults with weak stomachs. Josh was fully clothed in modern camo and not the latest in Tarzan apparel.

Seriously though, I like my rifles, shotguns, pistols, bows, and crossbows and am reasonably proficient in their use. I don’t participate in every form of hunting or chasing all available quarry. I hunt to improve my table fare, as downtime away from work, and as a connection to the natural world.

As a group we suffer from a few forms of elitism based on quarry pursued, implements used, style of hunting, and a multitude of “ethical practices.” We’ll tear each other up over of 25 grams of broad head weight, or a few thousandths of an inch in bullet diameter. It’s a very large black eye for us collectively and easily exploited by those who have the end of all hunting as their stated goal.

Even more so, and to be more pointed, we are subjected to death by a thousand paper cuts, and sadly some of our ranks play right into it. Divide and conquer is applied daily in the world of public opinion and yet we sit around scratching our heads as to how we keep losing ground despite our contributions, new hunter recruitment and efforts at improving hunter participation.

To be frank, we all need to get off our high horses and support all legal forms of hunting. While I’m not a big fan of some hunting methods, I don’t need to be bashing my fellow sportsmen in public. I can vote my opinions with my dollars and my participation (or lack thereof). As I mentioned, I’m not into spear hunting or interested in trying it, but I have no problem with it during legal seasons, when the hunter is well practiced in their chosen implement, knows the limitations, and makes the same shoot/no shoot decisions we make with a gun or a bow at further distances. We all know bow hunters and gun hunters who could benefit from the same approach.

As for Under Armour, do we, a group that spends something north of $23 billion on equipment and clothing annually, put up with being out-voiced by a mere forty three hundred signatures? Seriously? Would Under Armour get the message if we said screw off, and left all their products on the racks at Bass Pro, Cabela’s, and Dick’s? Would having their their $40 shirts languish on clearance racks their attention?

We are a target market for their products. Does anyone think the anti-hunters are buying their gear in the same volume that hunters do? Have we totally forgotten what a powerful demographic we are as the purchasers of outdoor clothing, equipment, licenses, travel food, etc? Do we let a bunch of misinformed, misled anti’s outflank us as an influence on companies that supposedly supply and outfit our hunting trips?

A company such as Under Armour that measures sales in hundreds of millions must certainly understand just how large our demographic is. They had a good idea of the market share they anticipated gaining by jumping into the camo gear business. I challenge them to explain how they let such a small petition influence a decision that may result in a big drop in their fourth quarter 2016 sales. There can be — should be — a price to pay, a consequence for aligning themselves with anti-hunters rather than those of us who actually purchase and use their products.

I strongly suggest you make your voices heard directly to Under Armour, or any other company that picks the wrong team, and still wants our dollars and our support. Make your opinion known with your purse and your wallet. Some CEO’s ignore phone calls, emails, and will not take the time to read your heartfelt letters. The bottom line is all that commands their attention.

Remember, the anti-hunting and anti-fishing groups understand corporate decision making and the art of protesting while we’re busy tromping in the woods or wetting a line. By the numbers, we are much stronger, we give back, and we help sustain our resources. Make your dollars count.

Under Armour’s knee-jerk reaction matters as it gives power to anti-hunting groups that don’t respect legal activities, the legal pursuit of time honored pastimes, and do essentially nothing for the protection or improvement of wildlife and the natural resources that we as outdoorsmen so passionately cherish.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. What it boils down to is we eat our own. Anti gun folks feel we should be disarmed cause, feelings. Some of us feel that spear hunting a bear is bad, cause feelings.

    First world problems. Weird Al had it right.

    • This is the because most Fudds are moderates, and cowards.

      Its always easier to shoot at your own side than actually face the enemy.

      • Bullshit. The only people here trying to shut people up are people like you by calling anyone who disagrees with you a fudd. This guy was a complete jackass. There are better tools for the job end of story. His actions give half the people in the country a reason to even think about hunting. Try living in a state like Colorado that is literally under siege from crunchy granolas. Under armor was and is for hipsters, chucking spears at bears is also the definition of hipster. He doesn’t represent me, and I will call an idiot an idiot. My money supports all the gun rights groups most of the people on Ttag bad mouth. Don’t tell me that because I disagree with this idiot I need to sit down, his actions smear all of us like it or not. You want to chuck spears at game do it go your hearts content, just expect a shitstorm if you film it and then cry to mama about your own creation. Use a rifle people. The truth about guns is that a firearm works better than a spear a bow or a sword. I thought that’s what this whole site was all about.

        • Agree completely. That ain’t huntin, that was stuntin. I don’t support attention whores. Period.

        • It has been considered hunting and put food on the table for thousands of years, and now you come along with your modern gear and say it isnt !! who are you?? You would not be here if your ancestors did not hunt with spears, and or then ran the game down in bare feet. Again , who are you???

        • “The truth about guns is that a firearm works better than a spear a bow or a sword.”
          Bow hunting has been around for as along as I can remember and is VERY legal in the places I’ve lived and you dare put bows in there because GUNS?

          I know plenty of bow hunters who do hunting and their prey justice. What? You don’t think hunters with guns make bad shots and the animals die slowly or live mangled because the hunter took a bad shot? Obviously, you’ve made the call that bow hunting and all other forms are out dated and shouldn’t be done. A bad shot is a bad shot regardless of the weapon used.

          But hey! Maybe you’re on to something… let me take my AR15 out and go bear hunting. Its a gun, right? It fires bullets so I must be OK to use it because its MODERN! No need to use those pesky out dated rounds…That’s your logic. No need for anything outdated…


        • “Agree completely. That ain’t huntin, that was stuntin. I don’t support attention whores. Period.”

          Exactly. This is so good, it deserves to be repeated. +1000. This was just another version of trophy hunting which I detest. The only difference was the context. The purpose—gaining a little street-cred from your homies—is the same.

        • Really Joseph! Your elite cause you shoot a gun. . way to back up our brothers that hunt. I’ve seen your type, macho gun holder who probably can hit the broad side of a barn or are you of the I need to shoot it at 500 yards. I bowhunt, compound and traditional, I also hunt with a crossbow and rifle. I’ve seen guys shoot a traditional bow better than you can probably ever shoot with a rifle. It was a legal hunt, done with legal means. He recovered the bear in 60 yards. You sound like the libtards who complained. Get over yourself dude!

        • To show your tolerance, you say “This guy was a complete jackass.” Sounds kind of like a liberal to call someone you disagree with names.

          Others say he was doing it for attention.

          Those of you talking like that are the problem.

          The anti’s hate hunting, period. There is a grain of truth in calling people who have a problem with this fudds. Is mounting a gopro to your rifle (or using a scope with built in camera) attention seeking? Or is it a way to record an amazing moment in the wild on the off chance you can capture it? You can’t even post a picture of dead game on facebook without receiving anti-hunting comments, don’t try and tell anyone those people aren’t who drives this sort of “movement”.

          You aren’t going to change opinion by stigmatizing certain types of hunting. When it’s gone, then they go after the next type. Did (essentially) banning machine guns stop the anti’s? Going after HOW you hunt is a smokescreen to distract attention from the fact that they are just waiting for the opportunity to go after the next type of hunting, and the ultimate goal is no hunting, period, and probably no meat period.

          I’ve seen hound hunting and bear baiting banned in my lifetime, in my state. I didn’t participate in either, but you won’t hear me ever tell someone who did that I’m better off because their method of hunting is gone.

      • What it boils down is being an attention wh()re.
        I’ve killed hogs with a spear but I would never post a video on social media.
        It tasteless.
        It belittles the true meaning of hunting.

        I hunt to connect with the outdoors and maybe even bring home some original #freerange #organic meat.
        I don’t hunt to brag about how many deer I killed or brag about how cool I think I am.
        I don’t hunt to see how many ‘likes’ I can get on FB.

        Those clowns are public figures and sponsored by a public company. UA had every right to pull their sponsorship.
        I’ll keep buying UA because I like the gear.

        • Besides, too many people forget they are taking the LIFE of an animal.
          All of Gods creatures – all life is sacred.
          Publicly displaying the demise of one of Gods creatures at your hands is not only arrogant but sinful.
          Some of you need to learn some RESPECT.
          My grandaddy (and oleman) would absolutely wear myarse out if I was going around bragging about killing an animal.

  2. The video footage was published online, resulting in a huge negative response from the anti-hunting community, complete with all the ignorance and emotional nonsense we as sportsmen have come to expect from their ranks.

    And, apparently, from our own.

    ►They didn’t like his victory dance = disrespect for the sport.
    ►They didn’t like his camera mounted spear = disrespect for the sport.
    ►They didn’t like that he was eating nearby = disrespect for the sport (as if eating a fish out of a stream is better).
    ►They didn’t like him using a spear = disrespect for the sport because a 416 rigby wasn’t used.

    Opinions Opinions.

    • Very true.

      I couldn’t believe the number of so-called outdoorsmen and hunting enthusiasts on TTAG that went for the throat. Closet Liberals.

      • Name call all you want. This far-ass right conservative doesn’t support attention whores with spears.

        • Far right conservative? matt, how does that work? You still living in the section 8 housing in chicago? Still eating off your ebt card?

          You’re a troll. On this site that usually means proggie/marxist. You the one exception?

      • Well – honestly – there are freedom hating liberals and freedom hating conservatives too. Both groups are looking to enforce their opinion on you and your lifestyle.

      • You’re right about it all, except one thing. They are not “Closet Liberals”; they are neo-conservatives; the core, at least until the advent of Trump, of the Republican party. They believe in economic freedom, but social control, and they see this as a moral/ethical/social issue.

        The fact is, freedom is what this country is about, or at least was supposed to be about. Individuals can have all the tyrannical opinions they like, but, ultimately, our government should be all about liberty. It SHOULD be restrained from both economic tyranny AND social tyranny at all levels.

        From the perspective of “most freedom” this whole spear hunting thing is a non-issue; no human was harmed, in any way, by his hunt, that would not have been just as harmed by a hunt with a gun or bow or nuclear weapon (you know, for that didn’t feel even a single bit of pain ethical kill). People who think he was unethical are provably wrong; the bear died quickly and cleanly in this instance. People who think he was showboating are merely making a “feels” call based on their personal distaste for celebrity-seeking; but there have always been people who want to be famous and always will be; that is freedom.

        If anyone has an argument relevant to this that doesn’t boil down to a personal distaste for the guy or his provably ethical methods, speak up, and isn’t a flat out lie (like all the “it wasn’t ethical” arguments). I have not heard any such argument.

    • The “Morals” Clauses that are part of just about all sponsor endorsement obligations is usually pretty one-sided on the side of the sponsor. If the Bowmars valued their sponsor they would have acted more responsibly and not created this incident in the first place. To say UA is selling out is naive and short sighted. The Bowmars wanted the attention and I guess they got it. UA or any other sponsor is always within their rights to drop their endorsement when the celebrity fails to live up to the standards of the sponsor.
      In my opinion UA was doing themBowmars and everyone else a favor by acting swiftly to put a stop to the campaign. It’s the Bowmars who continue to stir the pot.. My guess is that they haven’t only toasted any chance of getting their deal back with UA but they most likely scared off any other company that might have considered signing them.

    • “They didn’t like his victory dance = disrespect for the sport.”

      It didn’t look like a victory dance to me. It looked like he was trying to keep that tree between him and the bear
      after he took the shot.

      “They didn’t like him using a spear = disrespect for the sport because a 416 rigby wasn’t used.”

      He was an All American in javelin in college. Who better to try it?

    • I think you hit the nail on the head with the video thing. In this day and age, if it’s not on video, it didn’t happen unless it was really heinous. If it is on video and it hasn’t been widely seen on video before, it’s the first time it’s happened in the history of the world and therefore some big anomaly. Take the video cameras out of this incident and we wouldn’t even be talking about it.

    • Because Under Armour is going to be spending millions upon millions of dollars in advertising during the upcoming NFL and NBA seasons. If hunters, shooters and other outdoorsmen don’t punish UA with our wallets, then a mere 4000 crying people have won.

      • were they not sponsoring a hunting/shooting show and this woman hunter – thus suppoorting “hunters”? this is a cut and dry business deal between sponsorer and sponsoree – would it be ok if they ended the deal with her if she kicked the bear in the head after the kill and it upset her sponsor/their customers? – no hunting laws broken by kicking a bear. no, this is pure free market capitalism which i assume we all support at some level. she should have run it by her sponsor before airing this unusual harvest method (assuming she is/was a real “pro”), or perhaps a scroll noting how much practice they did with the spear to assure quick death. its called a “job”. dont buy UA if you dont like them (i like their designs, but only on sale).

        • You’re absolutely right — what UA does with their morals clauses is strictly free-market capitalism.

          So is a consumer boycott in response.

          Just because some action is legal in the free market doesn’t mean you are required to approve of it.

    • Is this his third piece on this same subject? Either he has shares of Nike stock, or he has a thing for Bowmar’s wife.
      Sorry for the harsh tone, hope it doesn’t upset anyone. But this is getting weird.

    • Signed.

      Since you saw fit to end your relationship with Sarah Bowmar over a legal spear hunting incident, I will no longer be purchasing your products. I simply have no time for those who cannot tolerate hunting, yet claim to be a supporter of hunters and sportsmen.

        • Exactly. For me, it wasn’t the spear, and, though the baiting looks very unsporting through these eyes, it wasn’t the baiting, either. It’s this asshat and his juvenile celebration. Too much of that these days, act like you’ve been there before.
          As for UA, though it is over-priced, it’s good stuff, the most comfortable hunting gear i own, I wear it a lot and I’m not going to let any of this nonsense impact whether i buy more.
          In other words, I’m not micro-aggressioned here.

        • Interesting. You CLAIM to hate attention whores, but you keep on trolling for…attention.

          I’m not gonna say it. Somebody else will.

  3. Haven’t ever purchased anything made by underarmor nor do i plan to, especially after this stunt, i watched the spearing video, damn nice throw if you ask me, wonder how these pukes would have felt if he would have done it the native way, get the bear to chase, jam the handle of the spear into the earth and let the bear impale himself, bet that would have been a field day with the anti’s. Plan on buying some camo tomorrow, and I promise not one thread will be UA!

  4. I’ve abstained until now from commenting on this.

    I just want to say, hopefully for the last time: A SPEAR is NOT a thrown weapon. It is a pole-arm. It is used in one or two hands to lunge with. It was inappropriate, reckless, and yes perhaps a bit unethical for this gettin-in-touch-with-muh-medieval-side jackass to do this stunt (and that what it is). Spears where used as weapons of war and self-defense for millenia, and were generally employed for hunting in groups, or with dogs, and later on horse back. The hunting spear was deferentiated from the war spear, being specialized for the task, typically heavier and sporting a crossguard to ensure the weapon did not overpenetrate and stop the typically large game from running the shaft at you – allowing you to control it somewhat in its death-throws.

    To clarify further, a javelin IS a thrown weapon. It is lighter, in most cases shorter, and more easy lends itself to powerful and acurate throws…and even then the cultures that used them usually employed an atlatl with it when hunting large game, as by itself its too light for reliable penetration. It was also superceded in most cultures by the bow, for obvious reasons.

    This spectacle is an uninformed excercise in modern tribalism and animal abuse….its certainly NOT hunting. I think Under-Armor should distance itself from this kind of rank behavior. Bring on the butt-hurt.

    • This is the definition of hunting:

      Hunting (n) – the activity of hunting wild animals or game, especially for food or sport.

      Wikipedia: Hunting is the practice of killing or trapping any animal, or pursuing or tracking it with the intent of doing so.

      Sorry – he was hunting. Your opinion noted, but hopefully you wouldn’t endorse legislation further restricting people’s ability to hunt in the fashion they prefer to do so – based on your opinion of the subject. Such is the downfall of freedom in America: The lack of a live and let live mentality. You don’t like it? Fine. Don’t do it. Just don’t expect others to always agree and live the life you approve of. – and I’m not necessarily claiming you feel this way – i’m just hoping your not.

      • Yes, as a textbook definition it is hunting, but as a practiced craft with deference and respect for the game being hunted, and the methods of doing so….its not. No more than running around throwing hammers at game is hunting – It might work, but its misguided, needlessly silly and more brutal than necessary.

        • Wow, with that level of knowledge over the proper terminology of sharp pointy sticks, you must be an expert. I’m sure the bears you’ve killed with your javelin feel a lot more respected than his bear killed by a spear.

        • I agree. I saw no respect for the bear in that video. Complete attention whoring is what I saw. Hunting may be fun, but the killing isn’t, at least for me.

      • Oh look, it’s TGM, dutifully following the marching orders of the little SJW soccer mom who astroturffed this little petition.

      • That would be the broadestly applicable layman definition. Any decent amount of time spent reading about the historical uses and methods of such implements shows it to be an inadequate one for this purpose.

        And no a javelin is a type of thrown missle-weapon, as spear is not. Thats entirely my point. The terms are misapplied so often they are ingrained in popular culture, to an extent that people act in erroneuos, uninformed ways – this story being a prime example.

        • Yay, judgement! How many bears have you taken with a spear? Oops, javelin? If that number is zero, you’re just being difficult for no particular reason.

        • So the comments and opinions on this article should number zero, in your mind? I bet we shouldn’t comment on cop misbehavior because we aren’t cops, right? Freaking cops.

        • Third Grey,

          Relax. Seriously. Here’s Dub acting like the world’s javelin vs. spear expert when it looks like he hasn’t done anything. Do I call people out for their lack of experience other than armchair quarterbacking? Yes, I do. If you think that’s a “cop issue” than go for it.

          You know what? You might be totally right about the cop issue thing. I call people out on the side of the road who “haven’t” been speeding / drinking / don’t have a suspended license / don’t have arrest warrants / aren’t driving a stolen car, etc.

          Would you feel better if I told you I’ve thrown spears but never hunted with them? Did the spear become a javelin the moment it left my hand? I don’t think so. So if someone repeatedly makes that assertion I find it annoying.

        • A81. 3rd gray is a troll that’s been stalking me and FWW. Just so’s you know with whom you’re dealing. It’s very possible he’s lower case matt.

    • A javelin IS a spear, in the same way that a square IS a rectangle.

      Spears have been thrown since their inception.

      You need to learn more about the history of armaments. There have been many variations of the spear throughout history. The pike is the long spear of which you speak. It was mainly held, and used to keep enemy forces at a safe distance, it to stab dangerous prey from a safe distance. A lance is spear type developed for a horseman. Tridents were specialized hunting and combat weapons. All are in the spear family.

      • My stated view is coming directly from years of studying history, and specifically ancient and medieval weaponry and their application. And once again – Spears are NOT thrown weapons. You can throw it, but they are not intended and are poor choices for doing so.

        • “And once again – Spears are NOT thrown weapons.”

          According to the Britannica article mentioned above they are.

          “One of the earliest weapons devised by man, the spear was originally simply a sharpened stick. Primitive peoples used spears primarily as thrown weapons. When military practice evolved from the independent action of individuals to the group movements of masses of soldiers, the spear became a thrusting weapon.”

          You seem to be coming at the use of spears by coordinated armies, not from the standpoint of primitive hunting.

        • BDub says:
          August 23, 2016 at 10:18
          My stated view is coming directly from years of studying history, and specifically ancient and medieval weaponry and their application. And once again – Spears are NOT thrown weapons.

          A Roman Legionnaire went into battle equipped with 2 “pilum” – a throwing spear mounting a hard point and a soft metal collar which would bend when the head became implanted into the shield of an opponent, making the shield difficult to maneuver. The result of throwing the pilum was a breakup of the integrity of the line facing the legion. The legionnaires would then close with the most successful close order weapon in history, the Spanish sword or “gladius.” The results were pretty impressive – the Macedonian phalanx didn’t survive long after the legions showed up.

          We could be quibbling over a spear/javelin term, but a flat statement that “spears are not thrown weapons'” is not correct.

        • Pilum are a type of javelin, a thrown weapon and were useless as spears because of their purposeful design, meant to bend under their own weight once thrown. The confussion here, and in Britannica it seems, is precisely due to the constant conflation for spears with thir thrown cousins – which is entirely my point.

          I’m not a carpenter, but I know that driving a nail with a wrench doesn’t make it a hammer – even if call it one.

          Incidentally, I’ve known people who write textbooks and encyclopedia articles – when they are writing withing their feilds of expertise, they do fine, but they often have to write outside of those and errors abound, particularly because of the tendency to go with popular convention – which in this case is flat wrong.

        • Ok, clearly the “javelin is a subtype of spear” crowd has supplied citations for the basis of their opinion (various dictionaries and encyclopedias); please provide citation(s) for your point of view; that spears and javelins are completely separate classifications of hunting weapons and that a spear can not be a dual purpose design that could be effectively thrown and used as a thrusting weapon.

          I’m very curious, because whenever I’ve read articles (and watch documentaries) about the differences between neanderthals and modern humans, one of the highlighted differences is in arm and shoulder design. Why si this relevant you may ask? Because the terminology they always use is that neanderthals were at a disadvantage with spears because they could not effectively throw them, only use them for thrusting, and humans could do both, albeit with reduced power for the thrusting method.

    • Thank you for your opinion.

      I do not care that when I fish my fly rod and fly are not historically accurate. When I hunt rabbits with my 10/22 I do not care that I am not paying homage to traditional hunting ways. If I ever get the chance to hunt pigs from a helicopter I will not care that it is an obomination in your eyes. I will not trade my compound bow in for a recurve because that’s how it was done.

      If I had the balls to hunt a bear with a spear I would do so gladly.

      You would do better if you had written this out and mailed it to everyone.

    • You say “Bring on the butt-hurt”, but you just wrote 3 paragraphs whining about why YOU think this is not hunting and blah blah blah cry cry whine whine.

  5. Though I still feel the guy is an idiot. I will fight for his right to be one. Not too mention it really ticks me off that his wife got canned just for filming a completely legal and ethical act.

    I’ll make a pledge not to buy anymore UA stuff until I feel this has been rectified. I do own a lot of UA stuff. I just counted five pairs of shoes and sandals and probably a dozen pairs of shorts and shirts. So it doesn’t mean much in the scheme of things. But if others like myself that do (did) like their gear stop buying, it will hurt them “wear” it hurts.

    I’m not a hunter, but I do spearfish. Ive even used a powerhead. Which is a device on the end of the spear you put a cartridge into and on contact with the fish the primer is hit and you know the rest. Very cool. I’m sure people think I’m an idiot and I hope others would fight for my right to be one too.

  6. Just for the sake of argument I guess this means if there were no guns, pointed sticks will also be socially unacceptable.

  7. This “kerfluffle” isn’t about spears, and only tangentially about hunting. It’s about the hatred that man-bun affecting, skinny jeans wearing metrosexuals, feminists and left wing nancys have for anything they perceive as Southern or manly. Hell, if a black man had dome this, the left would hold him up as the epitome of African-American culture.

    Yeah, it’s about culture. And since UnderArmour has taken their side, may all their overpriced made-in-the-Third-World crap be used to stop up the toilets in Target.

    • I’m none of the above Ralph. I just don’t like attention whores. Putting a go-pro on a spear and getting a lucky shot on a zoo-ready bear? Really?

    • You are exactly right and I’ve yet to hear anybody say it they hate the culture of being a man and just doing something just to say I did it I bet that was his first near with a spear and he does get paid to hunt and film it so that’s his job. It scares them that some people actually have to balls to do this sort of thing and they want to ruin it for everyone. Hell wasn’t it davey cricket who killed a grizzley with his knife? I mean come on I best most people who have negative comments haven’t killed enough animals to even make a good shot with a rifle on this bear much less a spear. And I’ve had deer run over 60 yards with no heart because they were shot with a 300 Winchester magnum. Hell I would want to film killing a bear with a spear too because no one would believe you.

  8. Well said and and apt response to the elitism and dickism that too often plagues the sporting and shooting world, including some on TTAG. We are stronger together (note: I despise pretty much everything about Hrod except her campaign slogan), and often we allow elements within us to be divisive. Some hate trophy hunting, some hate spear hunting, some hate this modern gun, this classic old gun, this sport, modified Glocks, unmodified Glocks, modified 1911s, unmodified 1911s, pricey guns and gear, cheap guns and gear, and so on.

    Here I am thinking we should all be pro gun, pro self defense, and pro freedom. If we did that as a buying and voting block, gun rights would be in a much better position.

  9. Sorry, but I just can’t get too worked up about this one. The guy strikes me as an attention-seeking jackass (hunting an animal that’s obviously acclimated to human presence over a bait feeder isn’t something to be overly proud of, IMHO), and UA’s response is wildly disproportionate and probably ill-advised. As I said on one of the three other articles about this, sometimes in a dispute there’s nobody to root for, just pinheads making bad decisions on both sides.

    I’m not going to self-righteously proclaim that I’ll never buy anything from Under Armour, because there wasn’t ever any chance of that, even before this little dust-up. I buy my T-shirts and socks in bags of six or ten at a time. They may not be made of the latest microfiber or whatever, but they’re cheap.

  10. The only acceptable rectification on UA’s part needs to be to fire the people responsible for that decision. Simple “sorry” is not enough.

  11. Yeah it matters. I am not a hunter and have no.plans to go hunting. But I support people who do-with guns,arrows,air rifles and yes-spears. That being said HUNTERS need to get off their high horse’s and fully support the 2A. And join NRA,GOA or whoever has your back-including pols.

  12. I don’t understand why a hunter would wear UA and their synthetics in the first place.

    When I’m hunting, I wear wool. Perhaps the only synthetics I might wear would be a rain shell, but most everything else I wear, from bottom to top, is wool. The exception might be cotton shirt/pants over wool base layers on nice days. Occasionally, when hunting upland game, I wear one of my Filson’s tin cloth coats. One is just a outer coat, the other has a liner, which is made of yet more wool.

    My base layers under my street clothes in winter are (again) wool. In summer, I wear 100% cotton. This way, if I have to rush out on a fire, I don’t have to think about changing my base layer when changing into fire gear.

    I really, truly, don’t understand hunters who wear synthetics. They smell funky after a week in the woods, they stick to your hide when you sweat, they leave terrible, contaminated burns when ignited, most will happily sustain combustion when a source of ignition is removed, they wet through easily, they make noise when snagged in the brush… I really cannot understand what anyone would see in UA stuff – or anyone else’s synthetics.

    • I live in CA and I have multiple layers of wool for when it gets cold in the mountains and on night hunts at the lower levels.

      I haunt thrift stores, cause I’m cheap, and have nearly a whole closet in my tv room dedicated to my outdoor rigs.

      I do wear a set of polypro socks under my wool socks for the comfort factor.

  13. I look forward to seeing the Under Armour booth at the next trade shows. Everyone needs to unite and let them know what they think of their decision!

  14. I don’t have any intention of hunting anything with a spear, because I’m to old, and I’d be lousy at it. However, I’ll defend to the death his right to do it. I’d dance too if I could ever accomplish it! The debate about the spear being a stabbing weapon and not a throwing weapon is just stupid. The spear, in many forms, was thrown in hunting for thousands of years. What purpose the atlatl, otherwise? The word itself derives from the original Aztec for “Spear Thrower”. The tool was a massive leap forward in weapon technology. No, the modern bear hunter did it right, unlike the ancients, who just threw lots of missiles and expected to follow a blood trail for days if need be. Get off your high horses and support each other for a change. Oh, and Under Armor is cheap but overpriced junk.

  15. The only more manly ways of killing a bear that i can think of would be with a sword or dogs and a knife. And I’ve never heard of anyone doing that! And with a spear I’d have had a large caliber handgun on my hip just in case the bear decided to take offense to the spear in his side.

  16. Just sent.

    Re: Sarah Bowmar. The recent events on withdrawal of her endorsements are spreading through the hunting community – with a significant crossover with other sports – at least in the southeast. Thank you for saving me from spending future dollars on your products. With 8 children, 6 grandchildren and more extended family the saving will add up.

  17. I don’t see us eating our own here. From the comments I’ve read (here and elsewhere), I don’t see anyone defending Under Armour’s decision to drop-kick Ms. Bowmar. The company is being universally vilified by POTG from one end of the internet to the other. I honestly believe their sales will suffer in a measurable way.

    And sometimes it doesn’t hurt to get a reality check. If you sit over bait and wait for a domesticated bear to show up, then you kill it, and you have the gall to call it “hunting,” then don’t be surprised when someone laughs in your face.

    And if you dance and celebrate over the kill while the cameras roll as if you had just defeated the Soviet Olympic hockey team, don’t be surprised when someone calls you a douchebag.

    And finally, if you upload that video to youtube, and you say something like, “I just did something I don’t think anybody in the world has ever done!” well, don’t be surprised if some of us in the hunting community point out the fact that your sophomoric antics aren’t helping the cause.

  18. I sure wish I’d bought their overpriced crap in the first place just so I could stop! Not really.

    I personally don’t care what animal he killed or with what implement, and neither should anyone else. Similarly, I don’t care what my steak went through to get to my plate. If I did, I probably wouldn’t eat it, and I don’t imagine that steak in its pre-delicious form suffered any less than that frigging bear did. No, I don’t believe in torturing animals by any means, but this was not torture any more than any other method of harvest.

  19. Over priced Under A Holes can buzz off. This guy needs to kill alot more stinking bears. Bears are good for nothing. Next time he should bludgeon one to death on video. Or strangle it with its own intestines. Up humans down bears.

  20. From someone who has used a bayonet (attached to a rifle) when hunting because the close range coup-de-grace shots would have risked uncontrolled ricochets from the stony ground, I fail to see what the fuss is.

    Other than a bunch of stoned hipsters who take themselves too seriously getting their organic knickers in a twist.

    For decades the anti-hunters and anti-gun groups have said we are cowards for using firearms and should use methods that give the prey a chance. Now someone has done so and they are still upset. Time to give up on appeasement and expose them for the hypocrites they are.

  21. Boch and other may attempt to force their subjective interpretation on this situation.

    But there is a very simple rule at work here. The Bowmars were not sponsored by their employer in order to bring controversy to them. They were sponsored to create good PR and specifically NOT bad PR. They had a responsibility and they failed their employer.

    • So if the controversy leads to UA losing business who’s fault is it? The Bowmars engaged in a legal activity on their own time and were fired for it. If folks chose not to support a business that intrudes into its employees personal time who’s at fault here?

      Maybe the UA person that was being paid to look out for the companys best interests should be canned if there’s a loss of revenue related to this decesion.

      • It is common for a sponsoree to be a “brand ambassador.” I know a sponsored shooter and we had a discussion about it the other day, actually pre-dating this whole UA mess. The sponsor, in good faith, provides he sponsoree with support with the expectation that the sponsoree will promote and extend the brand. They specifically do not want the receiver of the sponsorship to do things which will show the brand in a bad light.

        The Bowmar husband decided to do something which many would regard as controversial. Some substantial number would regard it as distasteful. Had UA known he would act in this manner, UA would likely have never given the sponsorship to the wife.

        Remember UA is a full spectrum sporting goods company. Hunters may look at Josh and say “no big deal.” UA needs many more than hunters in their business model.

        But all of this is apparently too complex for many Neanderthals and Neanderthal wannabes to understand or at least admit. Whatever.

        • Then we’ll let the free market sort it. See if neanderthal money makes a difference or if the metro male has the clout.

  22. The ONLY word that matters in this entire BS story is LEGAL ! That is all that needs be said. If you don’t like what happened fine, don’t look , but shut up about it.

    • Just because something is legal, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the ethical or right thing to do. Hell, it used to be legal to own another human being and force them to work for you. It’s “legal” for governments all over the world to forbid the ownership of guns to their citizens, but that doesn’t mean it’s right.

  23. Like most everything else, style of hunting is a matter of freedom of choice, with a few safety rule thrown in !
    Personnel intestinal fortitude may be lacking for some methodology, Grizzly hunting with bow and Arrow is one of mine however I try not to denigrate some on with the Cahone’s too do so!
    As for the ladies ex-sponsor, just quietly refuse to buy their product, and spread the word they are Anti-Hunting and only want your money, which is a large chunk of change in anyone’s book, don’t piss and moan let your money talk for you.

  24. Like most everything else, style of hunting is a matter of freedom of choice, with a few safety rules thrown in !
    Personnel intestinal fortitude may be lacking for some methodology, Grizzly hunting with bow and Arrow is one of mine however I try not to denigrate some one with the Cahone’s too do so!
    As for the ladies ex-sponsor, just quietly refuse to buy their product, and spread the word they are Anti-Hunting and only want your money, which is a large chunk of change in anyone’s book, don’t piss and moan let your money talk for you.

  25. And it’s also legal (and our guaranteed right of free speech) to criticize Under Armour.

    By the way, what’s everyone think of Boone & Crockett’s condemnation of long-range hunting? Seems a lot more problematic than a corporation pulling a sponsorship.

  26. The guy has got stones. Not only is he hunting up close and personal with a large and powerful animal with a primitive means that requires significant skill, he also disarms himself in face of that large and powerful animal and is completely at that animal’s mercy if it decides to attack after he strikes or fails to strike. If anything hipsters should be all over this because it is about as old school and paleo as one can get.

  27. I don’t actually blame UA. They have to react to their market. They do endorsements to increase sales. If their customers complain or their marketing department anticipates customers will complain, they have a business to run. I think the customer reaction is stupid, but they have the right to choose who to endorse. What’s too bad is they don’t feel the hunting community is an important enough audience or they would not react favorably.

    BTW. I used to read books about big game hunting and rogue, man-eating jaguars in South America were routinely hunted with short metal pikes that had a cross-piece welded onto them. The reason is that jaguars would hide perfectly still in the bush and attack too suddenly for a gun. The solution was get one to attack the hunter and the hunter had just enough time to get the spear in between him and the cat and the cat would run into it. The cross piece was there because without it, the cat would keep coming even with the spear going clear through it!

    • “They have to react to their market.”

      Their market? They reacted to an online petition “signed” by a few thousand suburban liberals. Not their market.

      And they p!$$ed off hundreds of thousands of people who ARE their market.

      This has got to be the dumbest corporate PR blunder since New Coke.

  28. Here’s my comment: Remove me from your website. It was my mistake thinking That our perceptions of the larger things were similar. Showing some common sense, dare I use the word “sensitivity” in the harvesting of animals reduces some of your members to name calling is too much redneck for me. And before you sharpen the blades you should know that I have been a conservative, a Marine and career law enforcement. Never squeamish about shooting at stuff that’s shooting at me.

    • Your comment demonstrates precisely the elitism criticized in the article, but you’ll never see that, bathed in your sanctimony.

  29. The issue is with how few made UA change their mind . By listening to that demographic they lost thosands if not hundreds of thousands of potential customers. It is to late for UA but not for us the hunting, gun buying, camo wearing public. With that said. If you got the stones to face a bear with a sharp stick by all means knock yourself out. You bear hunter sir are my hero the fact you filmed it is more a testament to the times we live in then to your character. I wish you and your wife continued success .

  30. People, (not allowed to say man or woman anymore?) Do you not realize that you are doing EXACTLY what the author warned against!
    Rifle vs shotgun vs handgun vs black power vs recurve vs compound vs crossbow vs spear!
    WHO CARES? We need to stand together against PETA, and the other anti hunter groups.
    I have written Under Armour, and will no longer purchase ANY of their products. I encourage others to do the same.

  31. Under Armour’s web site is DOWN!
    Coincidence ? I like to think NOT.
    “Keep those cards and letters coming”

  32. In this modern age of global near-instant communication, you have the power to reach the connected globe nearly instantly. It is a two-edged sword. Anything you say or video can and will be demonized by someone somewhere. That is simply the law of large numbers. So with great power comes great responsibility and accountability. Don’t post something controversial unless it is about a right (like RKBA), an egregious wrong, or you are a foolish person who values attention above all else and then be prepared to face the consequences.
    Under Armour has to think about their shareholders: they’d prefer to sell to anyone regardless of creed, but these two bozos force their hand to protect profits and a few demographics. They were forced into a Hobson’s Choice: risk losing hunters or risk losing anti-hunting PETA members and metro-sexuals. Wanna guess which market is bigger for them in just the US, heck just California?
    If the video had never been posted, none of this would have happened. Everyone should consider that simple truth.
    I am a veteran, Benefactor-level NRA member, and hunter but I think they should have never posted that video. I support their right to hunt, but discretion is truly the better part of valor.
    And I’ll bet they regret it now. Just because you can post doesn’t mean it is wise to do it.

  33. IMO, hunting bears with spears is fine so long as the person has the skill to do so and thus make a clean kill. Joe Blow with no skill who just thinks it is a fun thing to try, that is wrong for all the reasons stated.

Comments are closed.