Let the Patagonia boycotts begin

[Shooter19802003]

Hold up on those technical questions of substance, no place for that! We need emotional outrage based on assumptions and generalities.

Does shrunk mean we lose the public land? or does it mean it becomes federal land that is still open to the public it just does not have the monument status attached to it?

This. We have lost nothing and until the aforementioned land is privatized, I don't see where the argument is. I still feel it is up to the residents of the effected state to do with their land as they see fit. Outside of D.C., I fail to see why the feds own a vast amount of land. Funny, I don't see anybody complaining about the price of land they live on being private that was once owned by the gov't. If you are so worried, feel free to revert your land back into public use, just as it was before it was so egregiously privatised.

 

[MuleyFever]

If that's your stance let's turn it into a National Park instead!!!

I am unsure of all the specifics on parks vs monuments so if you could please explain to me if/how that would be the better option. If it is the better option then yeah, lets.

 

[cuerro viejo]

I am unsure of all the specifics on parks vs monuments so if you could please explain to me if/how that would be the better option. If it is the better option then yeah, lets.

For sure better option!!! It will piss off everyone but Patagonia for sure!!! No hunting, no firewood/timber, no 4x4'ing, probably shut down 3/4 of road system, etc) but hay it can't be sold.....

 

[woodmoose]

Geez,,,,I wonder who that CEO voted for in 2016??

I read that article and agree,,,,much more to this CEO's issues than the possibility of the loss of public land,,,,,

 

[blutooth]

Maybe I'm not up to speed, everyone is up in arms about changing the size of a national monument that hasn't even been a national monument for 6 months?

It seems a little disingenuous to call that a land grab doesn't it?

 

[Shrek]

The breathless useful idiots are all riled up ! The Monument status is not good for hunting and access in the long run and locking away public lands in states that are dominated by public lands will drive court cases to enforce the constitution and turn over all public lands in all states that aren't military bases excepting the DC. The wording is plain and a plain reading will end it all. The states don't really want to assume control and costs as long as they can benefit economically but squeeze them and they will fight. It's better to keep the lands as NF and BLM that can drive economic activity and remove the incentive for the states to grab the land.

 

[Boreal]

Would you please take the political bullshit back to Archery Talk and leave this forum for useful and respectful discourse?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[5MilesBack]

Also, as someone already stated, why is it ok to give back a little on this issue but when its against a republican supported issue its screamed that if we give an inch they will take a mile.

Why, you ask. Because there aren't so-called Republican issues and Democrat issues, there are only issues that make sense and those that don't. Man, I wish we could get rid of this party system.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

Ah, just more political scare tactics by a political puppet topher

 

[woodmoose]

Why, you ask. Because there aren't so-called Republican issues and Democrat issues, there are only issues that make sense and those that don't. Man, I wish we could get rid of this party system.

give this man a HAARUMPH!!

 

[Huntindog45]

I will be buying that much more Patagonia. Yvon Chouinard is one of the great industry leaders in promoting giving back to the environment and a hell of a human being. yes he has made a great living doing it, but he is a major player in promoting philanthropy aimed at preserving wild rivers, wild mountains and the world as whole. Thank you Patagonia.

 

[kjack_74]

Well while I worry about the sale of public lands that I love, that I live and play on ... And work for that matter, the over-use and in my opinion over indulgence in the Antiques Act that the executive offices have under taken over the last 3 or so Administrations is just plain wrong.

These lands should either have enough protection from the looong list of regulations, policies, IMs, IBs, Land Use Plans, Forest Plans, etc or they should be made into Wilderness Areas and go through the house and Senate so that We the People have a represented voice in them and not the unilateral executive branch Monument way of doing things ... If they are special and need protection and some of these areas do then do it the right way and do so it can't be undone without passing a new law ... Make them a Will, stop using a go around that can just undone with a stroke of the pen that's just a piss poor way to manage land.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk

 

[topher89]

Ah, just more political scare tactics by a political puppet topher

Geez, I have been called a lot of things but political puppet is a new one...

Thanks for the well thought out and engaging conversation. I am glad we are able to put aside perceived political differences and engage in a real conversation.

 

[1signguy]

I am all for protecting public lands but I would like to see some of the public land put to use if it economically benefits those around said land. If deals can be worked out that allow smart economic development on say 10,000 acres that is currently federal or other land and 10,000 acres in private hands can be purchased and set aside (add to the public land holdings what is being developed- land that is comparable in beauty etc to what is being developed) so that no net public land is lost- well that would seem to be a win win.

It is wrong to set aside land with significant economic potential when we are 20 trillion in debt, have unfunded liabilities, and hungry people...

The devil is in the details but this is not rocket science. Both sides should be able to sit down and negotiate a plan that fairly recognizes all parties in about 10 minutes. And then get to Making America even greater for so many that really need the opportunity that can come with smart land policy!

 

[cuerro viejo]

I will be buying that much more Patagonia. Yvon Chouinard is one of the great industry leaders in promoting giving back to the environment and a hell of a human being. yes he has made a great living doing it, but he is a major player in promoting philanthropy aimed at preserving wild rivers, wild mountains and the world as whole. Thank you Patagonia.

That's funny I'm the exact opposite, I can't stand their support of anti NG and petroleum exploration and also their financial support of anti ag practices.

 

[Gr8bawana]

I am all for protecting public lands but I would like to see some of the public land put to use if it economically benefits those around said land. If deals can be worked out that allow smart economic development on say 10,000 acres that is currently federal or other land and 10,000 acres in private hands can be purchased and set aside (add to the public land holdings what is being developed- land that is comparable in beauty etc to what is being developed) so that no net public land is lost- well that would seem to be a win win.

It is wrong to set aside land with significant economic potential when we are 20 trillion in debt, have unfunded liabilities, and hungry people...

The devil is in the details but this is not rocket science. Both sides should be able to sit down and negotiate a plan that fairly recognizes all parties in about 10 minutes. And then get to Making America even greater for so many that really need the opportunity that can come with smart land policy!

Yes by all means let the republicans pilage our public lands if they can make a buck. It doesn't matter that the land will be ruined forever.
Nothing trump is doing is making our country better, in fact he's turning America into a laughingstock.
If you want to be a trump bootlicker be my geust but I will fight tooth and nail to keep our public lands public.

 

[2ski]

Ah, just more political scare tactics by a political puppet topher

Leave Rokslide if this is what you offer. Name calling has no place here. And it shows a lack of real intelligence. Yep. You read that right.

It drives me nuts how many people decide their opinion is validated by attacking someone else. Not offering an argument. Don't agree with someone, well he's just a puppet of the liberals. Its bullshit and I'm tired of it. There's a lot of people that don't offer anything, they think they do, but they just deride another person and think they "won" the argument.

 

[2ski]

This. We have lost nothing and until the aforementioned land is privatized, I don't see where the argument is. I still feel it is up to the residents of the effected state to do with their land as they see fit. Outside of D.C., I fail to see why the feds own a vast amount of land. Funny, I don't see anybody complaining about the price of land they live on being private that was once owned by the gov't. If you are so worried, feel free to revert your land back into public use, just as it was before it was so egregiously privatised.

Hm. You are so right. While we're at it, we haven't lost our rights to guns that everyone is fearful of, so we might as well not make a big to do about anything until they take the guns away......

 

[vanish]

I still feel it is up to the residents of the effected state to do with their land as they see fit. Outside of D.C., I fail to see why the feds own a vast amount of land.

The "feds" don't own the land. You and I and all other Americans own that land. So you're dang right I care about what happens to something I own even if I don't live there.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

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