Companies that are Non-Supportive of Hunting

[Timbo]

Use google chrome and ad block pro is what I use (google it) after their install it shows an icon on the top right if you are on a site you like it is important to make sure you allow the ads through or (white list/ trust them) they depend on these ads to stay in business

Cheers!

 

[Edward Wright]

It may have been mentioned and I missed it , but Direct TV has all three , Pursuit, Sportsmans, and Outdoor channels, and has had them since they were available as far as I know, I have to pay for OC, but is them not DTV.

 

[Ridge Runner]

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.

 

[Royal27]

Not anti hunting per se, but anti NRA, which makes me personally question any commitment to 2A.

Here's the list of companies that have dropped NRA deals:

*Delta Air Lines: The company axed discounted rates for NRA members.

*United Airlines: United ended an offer of discounted flights for NRA members traveling to their annual meeting.

*Enterprise Holdings: The parent company of car rental brands Enterprise, Alamo and National is ending discount deals with the NRA within a few weeks.

*Hertz: Like Enterprise, car rental company Hertz is ending discounts to NRA members.

*Avis and Budget: The company that owns the Avis and Budget rental car firms also plans to end discounts for NRA members.

*Symantec: The cybersecurity company's LifeLock identity theft protection service for businesses and its Norton anti-virus software had both offered discounts to NRA members. Those deals are off.

*TrueCar: The online car-buying service is ending its deal for NRA members, who previously saved an average of nearly $3,400 off the retail price of new and used vehicles.

*MetLife: The insurer had offered discounts to NRA members on auto and home policies before axing the deal.

*SimpliSafe: The home security company had offered a special promotion to NRA members, but that ended Friday.

*First National Bank of Omaha: The financial institution cut an NRA-branded Visa credit card.


Worth noting that FedEx came out and stated they will continue to support the NRA discount they have, albeit with some stupid statement around the ability of assault rifles and high capacity magazines to be dangerous under certain situations.

 

[Hank2211]

Not anti hunting per se, but anti NRA, which makes me personally question any commitment to 2A.

Here's the list of companies that have dropped NRA deals:

*Delta Air Lines: The company axed discounted rates for NRA members.

*United Airlines: United ended an offer of discounted flights for NRA members traveling to their annual meeting.

*Enterprise Holdings: The parent company of car rental brands Enterprise, Alamo and National is ending discount deals with the NRA within a few weeks.

*Hertz: Like Enterprise, car rental company Hertz is ending discounts to NRA members.

*Avis and Budget: The company that owns the Avis and Budget rental car firms also plans to end discounts for NRA members.

*Symantec: The cybersecurity company's LifeLock identity theft protection service for businesses and its Norton anti-virus software had both offered discounts to NRA members. Those deals are off.

*TrueCar: The online car-buying service is ending its deal for NRA members, who previously saved an average of nearly $3,400 off the retail price of new and used vehicles.

*MetLife: The insurer had offered discounts to NRA members on auto and home policies before axing the deal.

*SimpliSafe: The home security company had offered a special promotion to NRA members, but that ended Friday.

*First National Bank of Omaha: The financial institution cut an NRA-branded Visa credit card.


Worth noting that FedEx came out and stated they will continue to support the NRA discount they have, albeit with some stupid statement around the ability of assault rifles and high capacity magazines to be dangerous under certain situations.

Reading this morning's paper, and more companies are dropping their support for NRA. In addition, and this may just be a Canadian thing, Mountain Equipment Co-op - our version of REI - is being pressured to drop Vista Outdoor as a supplier of merchandise. This was on the front page of the business section. Of a national newspaper.

I had not heard of Vista Outdoor, but, after reading the article, I sure recognize some of their brands. Bushnell, Bell helmets and Camelbak among them. Oh, and Savage Arms. Which is the cause of the trouble.

It's not that the antis are bring this pressure to bear that bothers me. What bothers me is that the antis are so much better than the pro-hunting and pro-reasonable firearms at getting their message across, and making their impact felt. I can't get angry at them for that - they're just using the power they have as a united front to get their message heard.

When Delta announced they were bowing to anti pressure and would no longer carry trophies, we cried out, but nothing happened. When anti-firearm people put pressure on Delta to drop their support of the NRA, they did. Two wins for the anti-hunting/gun community, zero wins for the hunting/gun ownership community.

Why can't hunters do the same? Because for some reason, we seem to enjoy fighting amongst ourselves more than presenting a united front. Because we don't vote with our dollars the way the antis do. And most of all, because we don't know how to use social media the way they do.

So who's to blame here? Don't blame those who are trying to get their message heard and succeeding. That's what hunters should do. But can't.

 

[sierraone]

Hank, there are also a lot fewer of us than them. And this time the target is the NRA, not hunters. And rightly or wrongly, the pressure has been building for years against them. In the U.S. gun owners outnumber hunters by 5 or 6 to 1. Most of those "shooters" will never hunt, but their AR 15s are the primary target. I do agree with you that not knowing how to use social media is a big factor. This forum and Linkedin are the only social media I use. I read all of the names of businesses as of yesterday that are dropping the NRA as business discount partners and I have never received a discount from any of them because I was a NRA member. I am not sure where this is all going, but I do know that a business does not have to have an agreement with the NRA or any other organization if it chooses not to. I'll stop now before someone preaches the second amendment to me, which I do know for probably the last 45 years or so.......along with the 3rd, 4th, 5th and many more.

 

[cpr0312]

Saw this yesterday, lets hope this holds true and the stance is seen across more than just Fox News

 

[Hank2211]

Hank, there are also a lot fewer of us than them. And this time the target is the NRA, not hunters. And rightly or wrongly, the pressure has been building for years against them. In the U.S. gun owners outnumber hunters by 5 or 6 to 1. Most of those "shooters" will never hunt, but their AR 15s are the primary target. I do agree with you that not knowing how to use social media is a big factor. This forum and Linkedin are the only social media I use. I read all of the names of businesses as of yesterday that are dropping the NRA as business discount partners and I have never received a discount from any of them because I was a NRA member. I am not sure where this is all going, but I do know that a business does not have to have an agreement with the NRA or any other organization if it chooses not to. I'll stop now before someone preaches the second amendment to me, which I do know for probably the last 45 years or so.......along with the 3rd, 4th, 5th and many more.

@sierraone, I'm not sure that if we took gun owners and hunters that there would be fewer of us than them. One of the good and bad things about social media is the amplification factor. Those who know how to use it well can really amplify their voices to the point where they can actually drive an agenda, even though their actual numbers would indicate they should not have that power.

I do take your point that not all gun owners are hunters, and vice versa. But what both sides need to understand is that we need each other. Even though hunting has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, lots more people would wonder about firearms if hunting was banned. How often do we see arguments in favour of the AR-15 on the basis that hunter use it? Equally, if gun ownership were to be restricted in a meaningful way, hunters would undoubtedly suffer.

That doesn't mean we will always agree, of course, but we need to find a way to handle our disagreements without being seen as divided, and to wield our power on social media as if we had much larger numbers than we might.

So I don't have all the answers. But I do know that those groups which represent us have to get better with social media.

 

[bilmcc]

That's why I dropped out of NRA years ago. They switched to a campaign of fear rather than providing reasonable support for gun safety. I believe the anti-gun sentiment grows because of the NRA's heartless, thoughtless remarks after gun violence occurs. Some of my friends attribute the downfall of the NRA to their decision to be a gun industry lobby, instead of taking measures to deal with gun violence, to support their members.

 

[Hank2211]

That's why I dropped out of NRA years ago. They switched to a campaign of fear rather than providing reasonable support for gun safety. I believe the anti-gun sentiment grows because of the NRA's heartless, thoughtless remarks after gun violence occurs. Some of my friends attribute the downfall of the NRA to their decision to be a gun industry lobby, instead of taking measures to deal with gun violence, to support their members.

@bilmcc, please don't take this the wrong way - I'm just using this post as an example because it's handy!

The problem with dropping out of an organization which was created to address an issue which you, me and others share - like the NRA or SCI - is that by dropping out or leaving:

1. You are eliminating your ability to have an impact on the decision made by the organization, and more importantly,

2. You are contributing to the divisions which characterize seemingly every aspect of what we do as hunters.

I get that the NRA seems to go overboard, and I also get that they believe they have reasons for never giving an inch. I don't agree, but, in my view, the best way to handle this is to stay in the organization and let them, and other members, know my views. Same with SCI and the CBL hunting issue. I don't agree at all with how SCI handled this issue, or the Walter Palmer issue, or a whole host of other issues. But I can't just leave every time something happens which I don't like, as happened with PHASA and the CBL issue recently.

In Calgary, where I live, we had challenges involving hunting and African safari shows, and our local chapter of SCI was doing nothing about it. That annoyed some members, who got themselves elected to the local board, and started to push back, in the media and in the courts. They have't always been successful, but they are trying to make a difference on behalf of all of us. That matters. Leaving because the local board was inactive, or seas an old boys' club, would have contributed exactly nothing to the sum total of good in the world.

I realize that in saying this, there are limits. If an organization becomes a place where I cannot ethically or morally stand, then I should go, but that also means I should actively oppose them and what they do. That seems to me to be sort of Civics 101. If things that go on in this world matter to me, and some things should, if I believe I'm leading a principled life, then I need to act. Inaction, or going home to my own sandbox, isn't really the answer on any level. At least not a defensible one.

Again, please know that this is not directed at you personally. If it comes across that way, please accept my pre-emtive apology!

 

[bilmcc]

@bilmcc, please don't take this the wrong way - I'm just using this post as an example because it's handy!

The problem with dropping out of an organization which was created to address an issue which you, me and others share - like the NRA or SCI - is that by dropping out or leaving:

1. You are eliminating your ability to have an impact on the decision made by the organization, and more importantly,

2. You are contributing to the divisions which characterize seemingly every aspect of what we do as hunters.

I get that the NRA seems to go overboard, and I also get that they believe they have reasons for never giving an inch. I don't agree, but, in my view, the best way to handle this is to stay in the organization and let them, and other members, know my views. Same with SCI and the CBL hunting issue. I don't agree at all with how SCI handled this issue, or the Walter Palmer issue, or a whole host of other issues. But I can't just leave every time something happens which I don't like, as happened with PHASA and the CBL issue recently.

In Calgary, where I live, we had challenges involving hunting and African safari shows, and our local chapter of SCI was doing nothing about it. That annoyed some members, who got themselves elected to the local board, and started to push back, in the media and in the courts. They have't always been successful, but they are trying to make a difference on behalf of all of us. That matters. Leaving because the local board was inactive, or seas an old boys' club, would have contributed exactly nothing to the sum total of good in the world.

I realize that in saying this, there are limits. If an organization becomes a place where I cannot ethically or morally stand, then I should go, but that also means I should actively oppose them and what they do. That seems to me to be sort of Civics 101. If things that go on in this world matter to me, and some things should, if I believe I'm leading a principled life, then I need to act. Inaction, or going home to my own sandbox, isn't really the answer on any level. At least not a defensible one.

Again, please know that this is not directed at you personally. If it comes across that way, please accept my pre-emtive apology!

Hank2211, your comments are well stated. I did not leave the playing field. I just moved my support to organizations I believed might be more effective. In fact, now I am leaning more toward support of hunting than 2nd Amendment. We do not have a right to hunt, so I think that may be more endangered.

We have a military who have personally sworn to defend the Constitution (This includes the Bill of Rights and other amendments) from all enemies, foreign and domestic, so in that arena, the NRA is not only ineffective but redundant.

 

[sierraone]

Hank2211, your comments are well stated. I did not leave the playing field. I just moved my support to organizations I believed might be more effective. In fact, now I am leaning more toward support of hunting than 2nd Amendment. We do not have a right to hunt, so I think that may be more endangered.

We have a military who have personally sworn to defend the Constitution (This includes the Bill of Rights and other amendments) from all enemies, foreign and domestic, so in that arena, the NRA is not only ineffective but redundant.

Never heard it put that way, very good response!

 

[Royal27]

Reading this morning's paper, and more companies are dropping their support for NRA. In addition, and this may just be a Canadian thing, Mountain Equipment Co-op - our version of REI - is being pressured to drop Vista Outdoor as a supplier of merchandise. This was on the front page of the business section. Of a national newspaper.

I had not heard of Vista Outdoor, but, after reading the article, I sure recognize some of their brands. Bushnell, Bell helmets and Camelbak among them. Oh, and Savage Arms. Which is the cause of the trouble.

It's not that the antis are bring this pressure to bear that bothers me. What bothers me is that the antis are so much better than the pro-hunting and pro-reasonable firearms at getting their message across, and making their impact felt. I can't get angry at them for that - they're just using the power they have as a united front to get their message heard.

When Delta announced they were bowing to anti pressure and would no longer carry trophies, we cried out, but nothing happened. When anti-firearm people put pressure on Delta to drop their support of the NRA, they did. Two wins for the anti-hunting/gun community, zero wins for the hunting/gun ownership community.

Why can't hunters do the same? Because for some reason, we seem to enjoy fighting amongst ourselves more than presenting a united front. Because we don't vote with our dollars the way the antis do. And most of all, because we don't know how to use social media the way they do.

So who's to blame here? Don't blame those who are trying to get their message heard and succeeding. That's what hunters should do. But can't.

So Hank I agree with you here, mostly, and particularly in that the antis do a MUCH better job at social media and just getting there story out in general.

The one place I don't totally agree is that they are better united than we are. I've thought this for quite awhile, but have never known quite how to articulate it, but think I have an idea now. So hear me out and realize this is an evolving position. I'd love to hear what you think too, as always.

1. Antis are as fragmented as we are Org wise - PETA, HSUS, Lion Aid etc.. Likely reason is money, which they all need to get separately
2. Antis have the natural advantage of a single common hatred, whereas we have different interests. Let all animals except whitetail deer go extinct and I bet we'd come together just like they seem to.
3. As a general rule antis have many more blind followers and less actual free thinkers. It's easier not to fight when you are happy to be told what to do. Hunters are much more likely to question authority, whether it be SCI or the government. We are individuals and not part of a mob.
4. They have an easy emotional argument - "save the whales!" I mean who doesn't want to save the whales???
5. The truth and fact aren't something they have to deal in. This also puts them at a tactical advantage over us. They will always have this advantage and I'm ok with that.

I think this is an important distinction. If we don't know what our own true issues are and what we are truly up against then we don't know what to truly fight. Just some thoughts....

 

[Royal27]

Sometimes it is profitable to get a company involved in politics, and sometimes it's not.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...r-delta-after-airline-cuts-ties-with-nra.html

 

[wesheltonj]

Add Yeti to the list.

 

[Hank2211]

Add Yeti to the list.

Seriously?

 

[sierraone]

Seriously?

According to another thread going, they are now owned by New Yorkers, who no longer support the NRA Foundation and hunters.

 

[KMG Hunting Safaris]

Great seeing hunters stand together.

 

[Hank2211]

According to another thread going, they are now owned by New Yorkers, who no longer support the NRA Foundation and hunters.

Thanks. Just saw it. A shame, because they make a good product. But other manufacturers seem to have caught up, so we have options, and should use them.

 

[KMG Hunting Safaris]

Thanks. Just saw it. A shame, because they make a good product. But other manufacturers seem to have caught up, so we have options, and should use them.

...and make sure to let them know of your decision to stop using them, and why.