Companies that are Non-Supportive of Hunting

[Badjer]

Some decades ago I subscribed to these (hunting) magazines: Sports Afield, Field and Stream, Outdoors, Peterson's Hunting.

I remember one of these magazines posting a list of anti hunting companies.

Most memorable, McDonald's restruant topped the list of some 20 or more other companies and organizations.

Verizon, AT&T, Sears, Kmart, and I parted ways a lot of years ago for their respective irreparable business practices and being anti gun/anti hunting.

I've read through this entire thread and want to add my .02
No matter how it's labelled anti-gunner is anti-hunting. They are the same mold, period.
Apparently being anti-NRA means a company/individual is just misunderstood. Just like the anti's want us to think.
*********************************
As Ridge Runner said, at one time an internet search would reveal lists of anti-gun (hunting) organizations. Those lists (and the links I had saved for years) don't come up with anything anymore.
Maybe because of backlash to companies like Dick's, these big corporations either wiped their internet footprint or just hide their donations better?
I have seen lists like RR is referring to. Target, AT&T, Yeti, Muck, Time Warner, Land Rover, Under Armor, Google, Apple, Levi Strauss, were all on these lists. Unfortunately I only have a handwritten list I made years ago to hang on my PC monitor as my proof.
********************************
My comment on this: Look how clean the searches are when you try to find info. Seems suspicious to me NOTHING can be found. In this super polarized world you would think this would be easy to find. This alone should make you stop and think. Hope you all have a good day...

 

[Badjer]

Let me add... Like it or not the NRA is the most influential pro-gun org. in the world. Boycotting or refusing/withdrawing support from them is seen as a win by the anti-gunners. You don't have to like them; You don't have to be a member, but it's probably better to keep it to yourself. THX

 

[Vinootz]

I thought it would be a good idea for us to have a list of companies that have shown non support of hunting, such as certain airlines and the cargo ban, or of any company that directly supports anti hunting endeavors. Companies can certainly be added or removed from the list as positions change.

I believe it is also a good idea to put a short explanation of what they've done.

• Delta Airlines- restricted trophy cargo
• American Airlines- restricted trophy cargo
• United Airlines- restricted trophy cargo
• British Airways - total trophy ban
• Virgin Airlines - total trophy ban (Any Virgin brand, or anything else owned by Richard Branson should be included)
• Air Canada - restricted trophy cargo
• Saskatoon Inn (Coast Hotels) - cancelled African Expo
• Holiday Inn - cancelled African Expo in Toronto

With some quick research I was also surprised to find that companies likeREI and Patagonia may belong here as well. I will need to do some more research on those, or have someone else confirm, before adding them though.

I'm sure there are many more, so everyone please add. It is little things like this that can make a difference!

I boycott companies that cow tow to leftists

 

[VolkFra]

If someone of you would like to travel in Italy avoid ITA airways

ITA Airways joins the campaign of the international organization Humane Society International/Europe and introduces a ban on transporting hunting trophies on its flights, both as cargo and as passenger baggage

ROME—The leading Italian airline, ITA Airways, proudly announces its support of the campaign #NotInMyWorld of the global animal protection charity...

www.hsi.org

 

[30.06king]

I would like to support only airlines that ship hunting trophies and do not support anti hunting organisations. The problem is most of the known airlines now have policies of not carrying hunting trophies, so to travel anywhere overseas one really can't avoid this situation. Hate to say it but Humane Society has had a long running, concerted campaign of getting airlines on board with not shipping hunting trophies and sadly, most airlines have swallowed to kool aid and signed on. I guess it's just too easy for airlines to jump on the bandwagon, believing they are preventing wildlife exploitation by evil hunters instead of researching the truth of the matter. Probably because airlines don't care enough anyway to bother with proper fact checking.
Humane Society and cancel culture at their finest.

 

[usaf77]

Let me add... Like it or not the NRA is the most influential pro-gun org. in the world. Boycotting or refusing/withdrawing support from them is seen as a win by the anti-gunners. You don't have to like them; You don't have to be a member, but it's probably better to keep it to yourself. THX

Well said.

 

[Sketchy1973]

This thread is an ever growing place of misinformation and/or a rumor mill at its finest.

Yes, some of these companies may be anti hunting, or at least was last week. Or they may be anti hunting next month, but only on Tuesday ending odd numbers. They point is, is that you will never really know the truth. Companies change their values almost on a daily basis.

Rei once stopped carrying CamelBack, and that didn't last long. They didn't want to be associated with the US Military since they were issuing CamelBack products. Sudden change of heart when you start loosing money.

Someone mentioned Patigonia, maybe? But they do sell a lot of fly fishing equipment. Fishing or hunting, what's the difference if it ends up on the dinner plate.

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

I’d just be happy if companies would just be indifferent/silent on political/social issues and focus on selling their products

 

[mark-hunter]

Let me add... Like it or not the NRA is the most influential pro-gun org. in the world

Exactly.
All gun owners in the world, take NRA USA as leader, and leading example of organization protecting gun owners rights.
But NRA draws its strength from 2/a and American constitution. It is unique and cannot be copied in any other country of the world.

There is also UK NRA or India NRA, but much less influential in their own countries, countries who actually have some of the worst gun laws in the world, thus have much less gun owners, thus have much less members, thus have much less influence.

 

[HankBuck]

It would be rather strange if the ASPCA were supportive of hunting in any form considering that they are protecting animals from abuse, mostly domesticated animals but nevertheless if they were supportive of hunting it would seem to be a contradictory philosophy to many of their supporters. That separation wouldn't be understood nor accepted. I am not surprised they aren't pro hunting, while they could intellectually separate hunting from animal abuse, it's a touchy situation that would make them lose funding and support from many sources. Lastly, whether we hunters like it or not, whether for culling, consuming or trophy hunting there is an undeniable element of cruelty associated with the action of killing. It's as old as this world but it's a fact. I have dealt with the ASPCA in a couple of situations that required their intervention. Overall, they are very good, concerned people who act with a great deal of integrity. I don't hold their anti hunting stance against them. This isn't to contradict you but if ever an organization or entity was deserving of some slack in their anti hunting view, I would cut them that slack over many others who preach their wonderful animal protective views but never hesitate to wear leather from head to toe and eat meat on a regular basis, or butcher gingerly in the privacy of their kitchen.

I started hunting when I was nine years old with an air rifle and understand that there will always be some opposition to hunting and hunters. I like fair chase but not some driven hunts where 50 hounds tear apart an out of breath petrified fox or if the fox ends up in a hole, a terrier is sent after it to bring back the doomed fox. I am strongly against this form of hunting. In Europe when hunting is mentioned, most people think of fox "hunting", chased mercilessly to death. I understand the anti hunting sentiment of non hunting Europeans.

The ASPCA would be the last I would look at sideways because they are anti hunting. I understand them as well. Once again, I'd like to state that this isn't to contradict you. It's just my view, I regret the fact as you say that they spend a great deal of their budget fighting hunting ...

As for Subaru, thanks for mentioning them, I wont buy one of their cars.

@Paul Homsy - if you are a Member of the ASPCA you should be aware that they use to have No objections to Hunting and allowed many of their dogs to be “adopted” by Hunters for the stated purpose of Hunting —- Beagles and Labs especially. In the 1950s-60s when the ASPCA was “normal & reasonable” Hunting was Not an issue for them. The World has changed and the ASPCA has CHANGED and they Now are actively ANTI Hunting, will Not allow you to adopt a dog if you tell them you will use it for Hunting —- but they will happily put that dog to sleep if it is Not adopted within a certain period of time. The ASPCA is a Business and they made a decision to appeal to a larger demographic in order to get support & DONATIONS — that is their primary concern and animal welfare is 2nd. If you want to rank the ASPCA as “3rd” worst Anti Hunting organization with PETA 1st and HSUS. 2nd…then you may be correct —- but that is a finite distinction