Let the Patagonia boycotts begin

[woodmoose]

one thing on the "feds shouldn't own land" ,,,,,,,so the Louisiana Purchase shouldn't have happened?

(and I concur with vanish and others, it's the People who own the land, not the "feds")

 

[airlocksniffer]

Good on Patagonia for standing up for public land. I still struggle to understand why folks on a backcountry hunting forum (most likely public land backcountry) seem to not give a shit about public land (or at least are indifferent to the current threats to public land). Transfer/sale of public lands is part of the R platform and has more than enough support in the current administration. Not sure how that threat can be any more clear. BE has nothing to do with executive overreach. Pretty sure it was being considered for protection for over 80 years. It's just that Obama finally designated it that all these folks starting complaining. SMH

 

[topher89]

topher, please explain how you miss the correlation of what I'm about to point out. You say Trump is doing things to hurt public lands. On pure speculation at this point. Not to mention the reality that you don't get to decide how large the Bear Ears monument is. Yet, you insinuate Trump is after our public lands by his consideration of making it smaller. That's misleading. That's being untruthful. It was public used lands before the monument. If the size is reduced, it'll be public used lands again. The only action that could stop that certainty is a DESIGNATION.



Yet, you erroroniously say different. Why? If my experience with people like you hold true, it's because your party said so.




I've learned anyone incapable of seeing the whole picture is not worthy of debate. They are right and no amount of facts and reality will change that. So, I didn't open that door with polite talk by asking for your opinions. I asked for you to show us where Trump threatens public land. In which you showed us a link saying he might decrease the size of a monument as your evidence. Totally oblivious that your theory is what is currently threatening multiple use, public land use on that monument. Only politics could blind an average intelligent adult into not recognizing these realities. Only politics allow for people to twist the facts into their version of reality. They become political puppets. Hence the name

My party? What would that be? Do you assume everyone who slightly disagrees with you is a Democrat? You have no idea who I voted for nor could you unless you leap to assumptions.

TRCP and BHA and others are all watching this issue closely. Should we all boycott them because they are concerned something might happen? Should we wait until public lands are being sold off and then do something?

As I stated, the situation is concerning to me from a public lands perspective and I do worry what could happen to public lands under this administration. I could care less about Bear's Ears and more about what it means for the future of public lands. Is it going to? I do not know but that doesn't mean I can't think and worry about it.

You may be willing to follow a party with no thought but I am choosing to be mindful and consider all sides of the issue.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

Nope. I assume anyone who confuses the varaiables of this situation is incapable of being a conservative. That's my party. Not the big Two. In case you are confused as some of the others, both of the big two are slobbering at the opportunity to get at these lands. It's just become the democrats preaching podium to say otherwise.


I too worry about multiple use public lands. Under ANY administration. I just ensure that I base my opinions on the facts at hand. Not what some organization or party politic lunatic says about it.



I'll leave your organization preference alone. I knew when you posted where you stood and where you'll stand in the argument. But, stripping mandated public input from management is not my idea of protecting multiple use public lands. Quite the opposite in many cases considering federal law and, real world results.

 

[topher89]

Nope. I assume anyone who confuses the varaiables of this situation is incapable of being a conservative. That's my party. Not the big Two. In case you are confused as some of the others, both of the big two are slobbering at the opportunity to get at these lands. It's just become the democrats preaching podium to say otherwise.


I too worry about multiple use public lands. Under ANY administration. I just ensure that I base my opinions on the facts at hand. Not what some organization or party politic lunatic says about it.



I'll leave your organization preference alone. I knew when you posted where you stood and where you'll stand in the argument. But, stripping mandated public input from management is not my idea of protecting multiple use public lands. Quite the opposite in many cases considering federal law and, real world results.

Well, I guess this conversation is over. Time to go fly fishing on public land.

 

[orionthehunter1]

A lot more access was lost after the Bears Ears designation then before

 

[JWP58]

Good on Patagonia for standing up for public land. I still struggle to understand why folks on a backcountry hunting forum (most likely public land backcountry) seem to not give a shit about public land (or at least are indifferent to the current threats to public land). Transfer/sale of public lands is part of the R platform and has more than enough support in the current administration. Not sure how that threat can be any more clear. BE has nothing to do with executive overreach. Pretty sure it was being considered for protection for over 80 years. It's just that Obama finally designated it that all these folks starting complaining. SMH

Because we can read. This is about so much more than just public land. Axes are being ground and "public land issues" is a convenient "in". I mean did you read the article? How in any way was half of the liberal nonsense even relevant to the public land issue? I'll tell you, it's not.

 

[5MilesBack]

I still struggle to understand why folks on a backcountry hunting forum (most likely public land backcountry) seem to not give a shit about public land (or at least are indifferent to the current threats to public land).

It's probably because conservatives tend to look at the bigger picture in everything that we do. We aren't a bunch of chicken littles that fly off the handle every time someone says the sky is falling. We hear a lot of innuendo from the media and such, but facts and logical reasoning are rarely ever considered in these things. So when someone yells "jump" we don't jump, and we also don't ask "how high". We look at the facts, we look at the logic, and we look at the bigger picture. And after this was done, we don't see a big deal with this "new" news.

Even more interesting though, is how all the liberals tend to disappear on this site UNTIL some thread comes on about the environment, a land grab, or some other innuendo of such.

 

[HOT ROD]

I will have to agree with U 5MileBack... I is pretty much the same people to... That come out of the wood work..

 

[2ski]

I will have to agree with U 5MileBack... I is pretty much the same people to... That come out of the wood work..

Yep.....I agree with you ol Rod. I see you popping up mostly on these threads too. And you don't usually contribute to the discussion.
Pot...kettle...kettle...pot. LOL.

I like talking to 5miles. I don't agree with him on some things, but I feel like I'm having a discussion with someone, not calling out someone that adds nothing but thinks calling people libtards or what have you actually gets us somewhere.

 

[airlocksniffer]

It's probably because conservatives tend to look at the bigger picture in everything that we do. We aren't a bunch of chicken littles that fly off the handle every time someone says the sky is falling. We hear a lot of innuendo from the media and such, but facts and logical reasoning are rarely ever considered in these things. So when someone yells "jump" we don't jump, and we also don't ask "how high". We look at the facts, we look at the logic, and we look at the bigger picture. And after this was done, we don't see a big deal with this "new" news.

Even more interesting though, is how all the liberals tend to disappear on this site UNTIL some thread comes on about the environment, a land grab, or some other innuendo of such.

One can only comment on so many "Which pack?" threads.

 

[2ski]

It's probably because conservatives tend to look at the bigger picture in everything that we do. We aren't a bunch of chicken littles that fly off the handle every time someone says the sky is falling. .

Come on though. That's a little short-sighted. We all come from different walks of life which dictate how we see the world. Do conservatives look at the bigger picture when it comes to the environment? I would argue they tend to not. The left sees themselves as the ones that see the "bigger picture" there. Looking at the "bigger picture" for the future. I'm not saying anyone's wrong or right, its just who's "bigger picture" is the one they agree with. There's always someone who's going to be more conservative than you. So their "bigger picture" is going to be different than your "bigger picture". If they are more conservative, does that mean their "bigger picture" is more correct than yours? Your looking at his like its black and white and it isn't. What about gun control? Both sides are looking at a bigger picture. I'm not going to argue about it. They are. If you really look what everyone's goal is and why there is a bigger picture they are trying to attain.

And for the chicken little comment, every time something is mentioned about gun control, you could argue there's a bunch of chicken littles there. Obama was the pres for 8 years. I think I still own my AR and all the guns I had before hand. But how many people were running around saying Obama was going to take our guns. So.........????

 

[2ski]

One can only comment on so many "Which pack?" threads.

So true.

"I want to buy a pack and am choosing between an MR/Exo/Kifaru/SG. Which one do you like and why?"

Please see the previous thread on the line right below this one....

I'm kidding. That's what make RS cool, is people come with those questions and the worst thing about them is the response is always, "cry once". What if I don't like crying?

 

[2ski]

I've learned anyone incapable of seeing the whole picture is not worthy of debate. They are right and no amount of facts and reality will change that.

I'll agree with that wholeheartedly. But I would argue its bad on both sides. That's why on these threads, I usually wade in for a few minutes, put in my thoughts a few times, and then step away when it just becomes a back and forth of people regurgitating things they read from a "legitimate source." And that finger points at both "sides".

 

[mtnkid85]

Good for Patagonia! Hunters need to embrace the help this giant of the industry is offering. They are fighting for our public lands! Bears ears is just one of the 27 monuments being "reviewed" and if it gets shrunk then that sets a precedent to potentially shrink others as well.
I for one don't want to see the Missouri Breaks lose any of its protections.

 

[Kevin Dill]

This is all making me think of a Buffalo Springfield song.

 

[RBNM]

Good on Patagonia. I am happy to see any company vigorously support public land. Let's not forget they boycotted the Outdoor Retailer Show to respond to Utah's elected officials lack of commitment to public land conservation. Just as an aside, their gear may be expensive but I have loved ever piece of Patagonia clothing I've ever owned.

 

[cuerro viejo]

Good on Patagonia. I am happy to see any company vigorously support public land. Let's not forget they boycotted the Outdoor Retailer Show to respond to Utah's elected officials lack of commitment to public land conservation. Just as an aside, their gear may be expensive but I have loved ever piece of Patagonia clothing I've ever owned.

No thier actions there pretty much mirror the actions in the article, all BS smoke and mirrors. Appealing to the gullible greenie to make a buck and future thier political agenda

By the time OR rolls through the have already booked 99.9% of thier orders for the following year. So OR means nothing but a cost factor. They had already made a big deal about the dates and threatened to cancel.

I could understand the public comment if shrinking it would cause loss of public land but it doesn't in any sharp or forum. National Forrest is National forest. BLM is BLM.

 

[Billinsd]

I never liked the political side of Patagonia, but they make some quality gear. The only thing I ever bought was a nano puff jacket. I still feel guilty about that purchase.

 

[Where's Bruce?]

How many here recall Obama closing a crap ton of roads in the Kaibab after Jan Brewer pointed a finger at him?