Bear Hating

[copper_head]

Had a few then nuggets? Might be best to put the keyboard down for the night mate.

 

[British Red]

so where is the the fat lad ray ,when the **** hits the fan ?? just saying : )

Getting stuck in, saving lives

http://www.raymears.com/Woodlore/Trip_Planning_and_Expeditions/

 

[Toddy]

MOD

From the rules and guidelines.

"5 - Forum subject matter
Some subjects should be avoided on bushcraft uk. Firstly any subject that the moderators say is not appropriate should not be discussed. Particular problem subjects where moderator guidance should be followed are those such as politics, survivalism (often becomes extreme), legal systems, TV shows and criticism of people, religion - this list is not all inclusive and members are expected to follow guidance given by moderators and other members that know the ropes. "

It's been a long day, I'm tired, but I'm pretty sure that somewhere there's also a bit about not slagging off celebrities, too. I'm not going looking for it at this time of night.

Pretty please, love him or loathe him or his behaviour, or that of any other bushcrafting celebrity, keep it very, very, civil.

As ever, your understanding would be very much appreciated.


Richard, pleased for you I hope you and the family settle happily into your new home

cheers,
M

 

[Blaidd]

Ah well, I'd finished my bag of popcorn anyway.

 

[northumbrian]

What!! Come in dude, I understand the BG issue. But Ice Road Truckers!!!! You gotta love the Ice Truckers dude.

But the Oil Riggers one was better IMHO


Like music? Own a beard? Music for beards: www.facebook.com/edconwayandtheunlawfulmen

Black Gold ?

 

[Tiley]

I think it's just entertainment, most tv survival is.

In real terms, or to me anyway, survival is common sense paired with general wilderness skills. And it's the nature of TV that they want to make it appear mor Rambo, I enjoy those films, but I'm never going to do anything I see in them. It's entertainment, not education. I think many people are against it because as Ross said, it's promoting dangerous activity to the public.

I would agree that it is entertainment. The interest of his latest venture on the island is the human one: seeing how others cope with significantly unpleasant and uncomfortable conditions and filming their reactions; although dubbed a survival programme, it is the human drama rather than the survival/bushcraft techniques that is centre stage. It does, however, seem to be rather voyeuristic, watching people we don't know having a melt down on television. I know that they signed their lives away when making their marks on the contract and so on but it would be interesting to see some of the hours of 'out takes' to get a fuller picture.

It is also interesting to note the relative absence of Bear himself from the island - that is in a kind of way refreshing. As for encouraging others to engage in thoughtless and largely destructive antics, the difficulty lies in the fact that Bear's initial forays on television seemed to be more of the 'how to...' variety of programme; as a result, some folk assume that that remains the case for everything else he does and so take it 'in the wrong way'.

I watched the first programme and was frankly bored by it. The range of characters and personality types was clichéd and results in somewhat predictable viewing. I hope that Ray's new series on the landscape of America will be more engaging; I'm sure it will be because the star of the show will be the stupendous, varied land and the individuals who interacted with it through history.

On a personal level, if this is the price of celebrity, I'm glad I'm a nobody.

 

[Satyr]

Well, to be fair, he takes it to a whole other level of stupid programming. I tend to be very critical of all TV bushcraft/survival personalities, but I don't find any of them to be as willing to promote outright dangerous and unsafe activities for the sake of a paycheck, as Bear.

The question about why people don't like the gear he produces or the shows he makes, is a different question from why people don't like Bear in general. The answer is simply one that experience has lead people to not trust the brand. If I've bought products from him before, that turned out to be defective or designed more to look cool than to function well, then I am not going to be willing to buy another one. It's just not how it works. We don't shop in a vacuum.

Same thing applies to his shows. After you've seen a few, you form an opinion as to whether or not you like shows made by that person. And to be fair, he never disappoints. I am yet to see a Bear Grylls show where someone didn't jump off a cliff, crawl through mud, hang from a rope bridge, go in a cave, or eat something disgusting. So, when I hear that he has a new show, I'm sure you understand why I am less than excited.

I bet that if you go to the individual threads and actually ask people why they think that buying his knife or watching his show is a bad idea, they will be willing to tell you exactly why.

You hit the nail on the head there Ross. That is the point I am trying to make - the immediate write off of a product or TV program just because of the person associated with it, not from buying or trying first.

I fully understand that he irritates people for various reasons and I do not hold him or his programs in huge esteem - they are entertainment and a great idea for holiday locations. I also understand that people have their own opinion on people; mine is that I dislike snobbery

 

[Toddy]

In general I personally don't really get the whole 'celebrity endorsement' thing; but, I know three very competent people who have all bought Craghopper's kit with the BG thingie on it, and they don't care what anyone says because the kit's good.

I think that's a real issue. People don't really understand quality of an item, workmanship, design, materials, etc., and so rely on a name being attached to it to do the work for them.

M

 

[rg598]

In theory one should select products based on personal use an experience rather than name branding. Similarly, in theory one shouldn't avoid gear because they don't trust the person who endorses it, or have had bad experiences with prior items endorsed by that person.

However, we don't live in a theoretical world. Practical considerations outweigh theoretical rhetoric espoused from a soap box. Moat people don't have neither the money nor the time to buy every individual item and try it out before making a decision as to which one they will actually use. If I've had a bad experience with a manufacturer or a backer of the product, then I will not buy other products from them.

For example, when it comes to quality, I trust Ray Mears, but I don't trust Bear based on prior endorsements. If I have a limited amount of money to spend, I will buy a product endorsed by Ray rather than Bear. Ideally I would be able to buy and test both before deciding, but I can't, so I have to rely on my prior experiences with those people.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

 

[Swallow]

In theory one should select products based on personal use an experience rather than name branding. Similarly, in theory one shouldn't avoid gear because they don't trust the person who endorses it, or have had bad experiences with prior items endorsed by that person.

However, we don't live in a theoretical world. Practical considerations outweigh theoretical rhetoric espoused from a soap box. Moat people don't have neither the money nor the time to buy every individual item and try it out before making a decision as to which one they will actually use. If I've had a bad experience with a manufacturer or a backer of the product, then I will not buy other products from them.

For example, when it comes to quality, I trust Ray Mears, but I don't trust Bear based on prior endorsements. If I have a limited amount of money to spend, I will buy a product endorsed by Ray rather than Bear. Ideally I would be able to buy and test both before deciding, but I can't, so I have to rely on my prior experiences with those people.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

If I am not clear on what I want and why, I'm more likely to go with what my mates or using and recommend or what is recommended on here.

 

[santaman2000]

The question in the OP was why do so many people hate BG? I'm sure Bear agonizes over that question on the way to the bank.

 

[Wayland]

I don't care if it's the best gear in the World, I just won't buy it because I refuse to put any money into his pockets.

It's the same as not buying elephant ivory even though it's a great material. If I can avoid it, I have no wish to support cruelty.

 

[JonathanD]

Gryllsy doesn't get commission by you buying Crags gear, he get's paid a fee anyway. But buying Crags is good as you support people they sponsor like me, and I protect animals

 

[John Fenna]

Gryllsy doesn't get commission by you buying Crags gear, he get's paid a fee anyway. But buying Crags is good as you support people they sponsor like me, and I protect animals

I am sure you could find a more ethical sponsor ....
I used to design for Craghoppers before they became Regatta's sister... back in the days when Gordon Conyers owned the company...

 

[JonathanD]

I am sure you could find a more ethical sponsor ....
I used to design for Craghoppers before they became Regatta's sister... back in the days when Gordon Conyers owned the company...

I have a few others, but as far as shirts and trousers go, they perform the best for me in harsh environments (yes, the BG ones). I've worn them in the desert and rainforest and they make life easier where normally clothing next to the skin in these places is usually irritating. They leave off the BG branding. It wasn't as prominent a few years ago, but it has gotten bigger and brighter than before, and I don't like it. 5.11 are my favourite brand, but the Crags just have the edge in performance and comfort And i can't knock Crags for the other good people they sponsor. Some of them just couldn't afford to do what they do without the support.

 

[Robmc]

I think BG is probably a lot more capable than a lot of people give him credit for. He has done the sort of stuff that most of us can only dream of. OK he may do some silly stunts, but he probably wouldn't do that in a real life or death situation, he is getting paid and encouraged to cause the kind of reaction which is being displayed here. That is what make 'good' TV!

Apart from that, as others have said, he is a devoted family man and a devout christian, and he is polite and can make a TV show without throwing in the obligatory strings of profanities!

 

[John Fenna]

I have a few others, but as far as shirts and trousers go, they perform the best for me in harsh environments (yes, the BG ones). I've worn them in the desert and rainforest and they make life easier where normally clothing next to the skin in these places is usually irritating. They leave off the BG branding. It wasn't as prominent a few years ago, but it has gotten bigger and brighter than before, and I don't like it. 5.11 are my favourite brand, but the Crags just have the edge in performance and comfort And i can't knock Crags for the other good people they sponsor. Some of them just couldn't afford to do what they do without the support.

Ah - it must be a body shape thing ... RM and I both fit into and feel very comfortable in 5.11 - and I have yet to kill any of my 5.11 kit, despite some of it being over a decade old!

 

[JonathanD]

If 5:11 did stretch panels on their Tac-Lite trooseys, they'd be perfect.

 

[santaman2000]

Ah - it must be a body shape thing ... RM and I both fit into and feel very comfortable in 5.11.....

You and RM both!? That must be one very big pair of 5.11s!

 

[John Fenna]

If 5:11 did stretch panels on their Tac-Lite trooseys, they'd be perfect.

No!
That would ruin them! - I hate stretch - I love a genuine fit!