Somewhat off topic, but if a company offers a lifetime over-the-counter replacement program, I have a hard time seeing it as “abuse” when the customer participates in it. If I wear something out through no fault of the product, but the seller will still replace it under warranty, why not return it?
It’s up to the company to decide on the parameters of their warranties, and how they are enforced. I don’t know Cabela’s policies, but with other now-defunct lifetime replacement programs it was often suggested or learned through experience (but probably never actually written) that scrutiny of returns would be essentially zilch.
The downside for the company is that they will need to cover replacement costs, but on the other hand the generous warranty might keep customers around and is a selling point for their products, potentially with little else to differentiate them from alternatives. Walk in with a beat up and broken rod, walk out with a new one, no questions asked – that is/was worth $$ to the customer. The company offering a “no questions asked” warranty makes a bet that the warranty will bring in more $$ than it will cost them to fulfill it (the associated sales boost, price inflation, customer retention, etc. offset the liability of replacement costs). Some of these bets didn't work out, so a company retroactively cracks down on previously unenforced fine print to cut losses... try that in Vegas I get it, but I don't feel sorry.
I bought numerous rods under that “over-the-counter, no questions asked” sales pitch, and even though they are 10+ years old I wouldn’t feel guilty asking for replacement, though I’d probably be rejected – it’s what I paid for, right? If not for those programs, I might have been buying from somebody else.
Prices don’t go down when companies quietly roll back their warranties, so value from the customer’s perspective is lost. I can empathize with the OP that the attractiveness of Cabela’s house-brand gear takes a hit without its former warranty.
