this is ridiciculous...

a commercial is a commercial...

it brings attention...

period.

why people become so easily offended is a mystery...

any argument or position can be argued from just as many points of view...

relax you hunters, uhhh i mean sportsmen... there will still be much more things to shoot at in the woods...

lates....

After reading this, I immediately sent an e-mail to Jeep. They responded back that they made the commercial "tongue-in-cheek". They did not anticipate the emotinal backlash from the advertisement.

Jeep apologized for the commercial and promised to withdraw it immediately.

That pleases me and shows that Jeep listens to its customers.

Erik Latranyi
Williamsport, PA

Robert R, you are a stated animal activist.

Because of that I would expect you to be anti-hunting. That's fine. You have the right to your opinion. However, you also state that hunters have no intelligence. That is a broad statement, with no factual merit. I know many hunters who are very intelligent, and who work in many fields from law, to medicine to hi-tech.

YOU stating that all hunters have no intelligence is like me stating that all animal-activists are tree-hugging left-wing fairies who put the rights of animals above the rights of people. It's like me saying that animal-activists are amongst the biggest hypocrites in the world, who spew false logic and sad arguments against hunting every chance they get.

Of course...I would never say that :-)

has anybody seen my mom??....last I heard she left the forest on a Liberty!

With the nation at war, in a recession, and under the constant threat of terrorist attacks, it's comforting to see that some Americans haven't lost track of what is truly important; their own fragile self-image. It's an advertisement, not a statement against hunting. Should Dodge Ram owners who don't like Aerosmith protest? Surely there is something more worthwhile for people to devote their time and energies toward: perhaps figuring out how they get the deer to play dead on top of the Jeep? Although, I suspect that is just because the deer are enjoying that wonderful new smooth ride provided by the Liberty's IFS.
Besides, with the slow acceleration times of a Liberty (compared to the good ole cherokee), a deer tied to the top of a liberty should be a much easier target.

yeah. show a commercial with a Jeep running down a deer, and they'd have PETA crawling up their ass.

Guys, it's just a commercial. You should be
much more concerned with trying to save
quickly disappearing hunting land than with a
harmless television ad.

where? most of the hunters around here drive ratty-ass F150's and K1500's, done up in ever-popular rattle-can camo. someone's seriously going to buy a $35,000 Grand Cherokee and put a bloody animal in the back?

They should realize that most jeep owners are hunters.

People you all just need to chill out I mean its a freakin commercial I own 5 jeeps from cj's to grand cherokees and my perception of the jeep vechicle is not going to change from one commercial. If your really a jeep fanatic like myself it doesnt matter what they put on tv! I dont hunt to me it seems pointless I mean its 2002
Its not like we have to hunt to survive or anything! O Im sorry hunters are controlling the wildlife population WHatever! Everybody is totally over reacting! I just think that there are alot of other things to worry about then some
stupid commercial! Everbody GROW UP! And remember
IT'S A JEEP THING YOU WOULDN'T UNDERSTAND!!!!!!!!

I find it humorous that the Jeep ad has resulted in a debate between hunters and non-hunters.

The fact is that Jeep is sensitive to the hunting community and pulled the ad. Anti-hunters take note. Hunters have a great deal of influence.

Hunting is what has saved hundreds of animal species from exticntion. The Whitetail deer, the Canadian goose, the Wild Turkey, etc. Hunters have saved these species and now they are in abundance in our country.

Anti-hunters have not saved a single species. Ever.

Hunters imposed a tax on themselves (clothing, gear, firearms) after the turn of the century. The revenues are dedicated solely to the purchase and expansion of wildlfe areas. This has resulted in millions of acres of federal and state lands.

Anti-hunters have not purchased a single acre for the benefit of wildlife.

Hunters conserve our outdoors. Conserve means use wisely.

Anti-hunters want to preserve our outdoors. Preserve means never use.

We all know the results of preservation --- uncontrollable forest fires, diseased wildlife, mutations, overpopulations, etc.

Hunting is the logical stewartship of the animal kingdon.

Anti-hunting is the emotional reaction to the act of killing, not a reasoned argument that hunting has had any negative effect on wildlife or the outdoors.

There are many reasons to justify hunting...and fishing. The following is the most logical explaination that I have read and demonstrates how deeply many hunters and fishermen and women consider this activity...

As a Hunter, a hunting guide and a status Native American (read Cree Indian, Born, Chapleau, Ontario, Canada), I have been repeatedly challenged by the moral and ethical questions concerning hunting. Over some 40 years, I continue
to arrive at a conclusion that hunting (and providing hunts for others) is a morally
and ethically acceptable practice. Although a personal view, it is one I ask you to
consider.

A clear argument for or against any issue requires definition of terms and hunting,
as defined in the dictionary, means to pursue game with the intent of capturing or
killing. I add a further refinement; that of killing as an act of predation; as a means
to food.

This refined definition makes it clear that we are concerned with hunting to kill; an act of predation, in which the game is consumed. While hunting to capture an animal may be another question for the moralists, it is distinctly set apart from the pursuit of game ending in death. Thus I reformulate the question: "Is it morally acceptable to hunt and kill an animal as an act of predation?". I see three major perspectives; the issue of rights, the social, and the vegetarian arguments.

The animal rights activist and anti-hunter offer us at least these three challenges as hunters. Each are briefly considered .

One argument touted is that when hunters kill an animal, they violate its right to life. This statement is logically and legally faulty.

The concept of rights is a legal principle, and in that legal sense, is not presently recognized for all creatures. Moreover, rights are an amorphous human concept developed within a culture and differ considerably, depending on the culture and society, and only defined and upheld within the laws and social conventions of a
particular society.

When we leave this legal view, we enter an arena governed by personal, emotional and philosophical complications where no commonly accepted conventions dictate how we act or what is right. To use the concept of rights when speaking of animals means we must have laws in place under which we can make judgements. Without those laws we must face our own moral structures, and those of others.

These legal, moral and philosophical details are complex, and a small example demonstrates the underlying reasoning.

When a wolf stalks and kills a rabbit, it is senseless to say that the wolf has violated the rabbit's right to life and freedom. In the wilderness there are no immoral acts or violation of rights since all events are by definition "natural". We can accept that in this event, there is no question of rights, other than a personal view. The event may be considered acceptable in that death is a part of natural wilderness life. Therefore the death of an animal caused by a hunter can only be examined in the human social or personal context.

My conclusion? In the present day, and in this country, legal rights are not granted
to animals, and hence there is no legal argument for, or against taking the life of an
animal, other than those laws and regulations governing hunting and humane practices. This may not be agreeable to some, but our system of laws are how we define our exact ways and behaviours. Without a law, we have to act within our own personal moral scope. And in hunting, we must bring ourselves to that moral mirror. Another challenge to the hunter is "An entire international industry is designed to raise domestic animals for consumption. You don't need to hunt."

This statement skirts the moral issue of killing and animal death and is in effect, illogical when discussing predatory hunting. It actually accepts the death of animals, and makes a distinction only between domestic animals and wilderness animals.

Furthermore, it embeds a general and socially accepted assumption within; we are omnivores and by nature, part of our natural diet is the meat from animals, and eating meat is acceptable, and therefore killing of an animal is acceptable. Read More...

The head of the WLFA is named BUD PIDGEON, I don't know why but I find
that very funny for some reason. It's kinda like BUGS BUNNY or DAFFY DUCK.
And we all take those two very seriously, now don't we.

Way to go Erik, I am with you all the way. What are you going to do with the three Jeeps you already own ? How about I come over to your house and we shoot them, we can do that we're both hunters, I mean sportsman. Its been a whole six hours since I killed anything. I really have to kill something, you know what I mean.

I'm sure they're shaking in their boots,Eric

I own 2 Jeep Grand Cherokees and 1 CJ-5 that I use for hunting. If Jeep does not pull the ad immediately and apologize, I will not purchase a Jeep product again.

here is my comment
There are a lot of commercials out there that poke fun at any number of groups or activities. I'm sure that Jeep did not intend to side with activists or enviromentalists, and did not intend to alienate or offend hunters. Look back at recently past Jeep commercials... I guess eskimos, suburbanites, all of us who were raised by apes in remote jungles should boycott Jeep as well. Just get over it.

I have not seen the ad yet but, it sounds great. I am an anti-hunting animal
activist and a Jeep Cherokee owner. Way back, oh say 150 to 200 years ago
we hunted for survival. Now I am sure even back then many people truly enjoyed tracking animals and blowing their little brains out. The really disgusting think about hunting is the fact these people call themselves
SPORTSMAN and CONSERVATIONIST, GIVE ME A BREAK ! Most of these people
track and hunt simply for the thrill of the kill, nothing else. Now maybe if all the
animals were armed with high power weapons it would be a sport. The truth of the matter is that most of these so called sportsman are not smart enough to engage in more intelligent pursuits and it makes them feel smart everytime they are able to outsmart lesser creatures of God.

In regards to the new Jeep Liberty "save the deer" commercial I have not personally seen it. Based off of the description given I honestly do not see a reason that so many people would be against it. Jeep's demographic (in regards to the Jeep Liberty) is towards the younger consumer, and women. Women (according to society) do not hunt. I do not hunt. I believe that Daimler Chrysler should continue to run the ad nationally, I believe that it's a creative ad, and I do not believe the ad was created to make hunters look like the bad guys.

forget the deer....I'm wooking for those waskalwee wabbits!!

couldt have said it better myself, some people just have nothin better to do than bitch.

here is my comment~~I really think these tough hunters need to develop a thicker skin....I haven't seen the ad yet but I'd get a laugh out of it...people are way too sensitive and unfortunately can't even laugh at themselves anymore. btw, I am pro-hunting...we need hunters to keep the deer (especially) from overrunning populated areas. Lighten up guys..sheesh

I like the commercial, I like the concept, Hunters who object to this need to find some common sense,worry about something else.