Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Backpack Hunting Patagonia- Pro or Con Hunting??

Patagonia pro or con hunters? I have only been able to find the Con!
Appears to me hunters should be boycotting Patagonia products.

Patagonia indirectly supports "Defenders Of Wildlife" as a "Featured Partner" through their Freedom to Roam campaign and the WitnesstoWildlife.org website, see this link

http://www.witnessforwildlife.org/

Defenders Of Wildlife are the NY City based wolf lovers partnering with PETA that have been stymieing the Montana and Idaho Game and Fish depts. That would seem to me to be "Anti Hunting"

In their mission statement about the "outdoor pursuits" they mention many- but hunting was left out.

Patagonia also backs "Earthjustice" the spun off legal arm of the Sierra Club. Here is a link to their backing of "Protecting Wildlife in wilderness areas" the legislation currently being debated in congress.I get that Earthjustice is trying to preserve wilderness from development but they also want "No Hunting" in those areas- snuck that in on us for sure!Link;

https://secure.earthjustice.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=1073

I could find nothing in Patagonias company info that says they support hunting- but plenty to the contrary.

So I'm asking the sages that say otherwise, what am I missing?

I have always believed they were anti-hunting.

I know it isn't politically correct to admire Yvon Chouinard and Ted Turner, but I would jump at a chance to have dinner with either.

I honestly don't know too much about their activities. But, I will still buy their products until I see STRONG links with anti-hunting groups or company statements that say so otherwise. Don't think they can be anti-gun when they are going after military contracts either. I find buying products from Red China just as revolting, but what can you do?

They aren't opposed to all of it, only some of it.
As long as their prices are competitive and their products make a difference for me in the field, I'll buy and use their stuff.
There is also the fact that we hunters spend alot more money on gear than does the "dirt bag crowd." That has to influence their bussiness decisions.
I don't know about you, but I like to have some sort of voice with these people. E

How about these strong links: Earth First! Finances

MtnHtr

I try my best to support companies that make hunting clothing. Wouldn't want them to go away. Sitka and First Lite come to mind.

Mtn hunter- Solid info, just one more example of Patagonia's backhanded support of the fringe anti hunting groups.

Maybe its because I'm tired of the apathy of the avg hunter or citizen in the US....but I'm sick of all the whining.
"Waaaah, the wolves are overpopulated, but I will continue to use capalene even if Patagonia supports the fringe groups, I like it"
I look at actions, and the actions of this company are anything but pro hunting.

I'm not trying to sensationalize this or blow it out of proportion. But we all know the game[or should] the loss of hunting is incremental. We loose mtn lion hunting, bear hunting with dogs,etc.

Little bits and pieces until one day you say to yourself, "Maybe I should have got off my ass and done SOMETHING"

Plenty of "Blind eye" support of Patagonia without looking at the facts.

Guys claiming the owner of this site Mr. Rick Bin [according to someone on the other topic]is a big fan of Patagonia.[ second hand info- if this is incorrect- my apologies]

My challenge to Mr. Bin;
You derive income from this hunting site and loyal hunters, why not give something back.
Lobby Patagonia to support hunting. Use your position, use your website base of subscribers to petition Patagonia to support lawful pursuit of game, State F&G programs, etc.

I use patagonia and will continue to. Patagonia can have its own opinion just like everyone else. They can be Pro, Anti or neutral, doesnt matter. I totally understand the anti-hunting movement, lots of slobs out there. I do volunteer trail work, 90% of the people that hike the trails are treehuggers. Your going to cross paths with the enemy from time to time, nothing to cry over.

If it wasn't for the animal rights activists, anti hunting groups and treehuggers we would have killed off almost every animal on this planet, you know its true we have done it before. It takes all kinds of people to make the world go round.

Patagonia has a pretty advanced, and pretty successful, brand strategy. Hunting would tricky to incorporate into it. They have a lot more of their customers to loose via actively being pro-hunting, than they stand to gain. The group of people who would buy Patagonia if they actively supported hunting, but won't now is very, very small in the grand scheme. It would be a poor business decision for them to aggressively market to the hunting community.

I don't believe that they are anti-hunting at their core. They are very active in supporting myriad environmental groups, and their is a bit of crossover between these groups and anti's.

They make product for the military, but they don't advertise that fact, nor do they donate funds to lots of pro-military organizations (at least not that I've seen), because it doesn't fit with their overarching brand strategy. Likewise, I don't think that they mind seeing hunters utilize their product, but you won't see a dude packing out an elk rack in a Patagonia ad.

I couldn't disagree more. Hunting needs checked, without question, but I think that hunting conservation groups have done much more to protect game populations than tree huggers ever have. We simply care more, and have more to lose.

All I can say is "Wow!" I would be curious where this point of view comes from? I am not sure of any situation where sport hunting has threatened any species populations. If you want to go back to market slaughtering of the past I think that would be crazy to link that to hunting. Hunters around the world have been the driving force in preserving animal numbers and to say otherwise upsets me... to say the least.

If they are anti I wouldn't buy one thing from them, zero. I do think Patagonia does fit this bill and therefore will not support - show me one thing that shows me that they are at least hunting neutral . ..

I am talking about the opinions that these groups shared. It was people who were in the middle who started Hunting conservation organizations. "Sport hunting" is a fairly new concept and we have done an ok job at regulating it. Trophy hunting is what most anti's despise and the reason they the feel the way they do.

Good example, i was hiking on a well traveled trail to go bear hunting when i met some hikers. They seen my gun and asked me what i was doing. I told them i was bear hunting and the first thing they said was "Why do you want to kill the poor bears just so you can have a rug?". Then they also said that the bears should be protected in this wilderness from trophy hunters like me.

When they calmed down a little, i proceeded to tell them that i hunt bears for the meat and that i leave the hide in the woods for the coyotes to chew on. They did not think you could eat bear and after having a pleasant conversation about their opinions on hunting, they wished me good luck when i left. That i day i did my part trying to convert an anti hunter.

The reason i told that story is that people are not born being anti hunters and they are not bad people for thinking that way. I don't agree with some things that Cabelas supports, but i buy gear there , same with Patagonia or REI. Just because its pro-hunting does not mean its good and because its anti hunting does not mean its bad. I have some odd opinions on things compared to most, the quote i gave is a little far fetched, but there is some truth in it.

Big W has a little wisdom in his posts. On a recent hiking trip around the camp fire my best friend shared some similar words.

"The world needs people at each end of the spectrum to balance things out." What would happen if every person in the world was extremely pro hunting? What about if everyone only cared about economy and industry?

I don't agree with the philosophy 100% but it has changed my thinking in a few things.

.

Yeah there are some words of widsom in that post. Most of the people that I know that are animal rights or anti hunting are just unimformed or humanized animals to the point where they think that every deer is bambi and every Moose is bullwinkle and no-one should ever shoot Yogi. And they think that hunters are responsible for the demise of all animals and can't at all see how hunters can be an effective wildlife management tool. With all that said I'm not going to give a dam dime to any company that fights my right to hunt when I can give my money to a company that fights for or is at least supportive of my pursuits. Balance - there should be, but balance there is not, there are only extremes, so pick your side. JMHO

It's amazing how people are anti hunting until a bear is standing on their porch, a deer is flying through their windshield, or they are on a plane crashing into the ocean from sucking in geese..

Carl +1 on your answer from a "business" perspective.

Patagonia continues to dump huge amounts of money out to organizations in thier "1% for the planet" program. Thier goal is to support and improve "the environment". Thats a pretty broad objective, and pretty much impossible to do without handing money to an organization that doesn't completely share our views.

I think they also deserve some credit for really trying to quantify the environmental impact of bringing thier products to market, and minimizing the footprint they create. I am pretty sure there is no similar company that is even close. This benefits us all. Thier products may be the "cleanest" available of thier type.

Also if you look back at some of thier catalogs they did contain photos of hunting with a setter and a falcon - its still hunting.

Also I know first hand that they have actively sought out a local wildlife biologist (F&G type) to support his work on GPS mapping of Mule Deer migration corridors and winter range for thier "freedom to roam" campaign. I also know that they supported the work that the Hawaii F&G was/is doing on native forest restoration and game mammal management. I don't know the extent of thier support in either case.

I am not suggesting they are "pro-hunting", but I would suggest that they are possibly neutral at best. And I don't think its fair to label Patagonia with the same views as the orgaizations they support.

By all means if they don't fit your ideals of what an outdoor company should be, take your money elsewhere. But be fair and spend some time and vett your choice with the same critical eye. Just because a company prints a lot of camo, doesn't mean they are good for the fields and forests.

Regarding the Patagonia owner's business perspective, these are good guesses and reasonable, but I'm afraid not supported by fact. Here is a quote from the owner in response to those who do not agree with his philosophy:

"It's surprising, not alarming. I couldn't care less. I could get 10,000 letters saying "Take me off your mailing list" and it wouldn't bother me. If you're not getting those letters, you're not trying hard enough. That's the way I see it.

What they don't realize is that I'm not in the business to make clothes. I'm not in the business to make more money for myself, for Christ's sake. This is the reason Patagonia exists -- to put into action the recommendations I read about in books to avoid environmental collapse. That's the reason I'm in business -- to try to clean up our own act, and try to influence other companies to do the right thing, and try to influence our customers to do the right thing. So we're not going to change. They can go buy from somewhere else if they don't like it."

So go ahead, buy his gear. Write him letters.

He apparantly is in business to act as an environmentalist. That's right, he takes your order for a sweater, hires a crew in China (or?) to fill it (using all of the fantastic environmental regulation to create infrastructure, energy, etc). Then he ships it all the way over here for the environment. Thank him.

Oh, and regarding having things made in the USA, he said impossible. He would be a martyr and go out of business! Tell that to Mystery Ranch, or Prois (just ordered my wife pants from there, Made in USA).

I support everyone's freedom to buy as they wish. Get what you want. I don't want anything from Patagonia myself. As I stated on the other thread, there is a massive list of all the envoronazi groups they support (many of the biggest anti-hunting groups included), but no RMEF, Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, etc.

Edit for Sources added:

List of benefactors from Patagonia--I think they claim $40 Million donated total:
http://www.patagonia.com/pdf/en_US/2010_enviro_grants.pdf

Interview of Yvon Chouinard
http://www.grist.org/article/little-chouinard/