Let the Patagonia boycotts begin

[Jason Snyder]

The Federal Government used coercive tactics and demanded the right to own lands as a stipulation for statehood. Just because they got away with it at the time doesn't mean it is constitutional or morally right.

Coercive or buyers remorse? There was a definite benefit to being granted statehood. No one HAD to take the deal. They did. While we're at it, should we return the Louisiana Purchase because we got it too cheaply?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ben h]

Quote Originally Posted by Shrek
The Federal Government used coercive tactics and demanded the right to own lands as a stipulation for statehood. Just because they got away with it at the time doesn't mean it is constitutional or morally right.

I'm not a historian so I don't know the particulars, but in my mind this was a perfectly reasonable compromise. The territories were established on federal land. Why wouldn't the federal government say, "fine, you can join the Union, but give us all your unused land back"? I don't see why the state had or has any claim to the surplus land. In fact the state and individuals got a sweeter deal than that because the feds gave them a bunch of land in addition to what they were already occupying.

I'm not opposed to using land in a useful practical manner, but these areas are unbelievable and like no place on earth and the only reason they don't want the monument is so it can be used for mineral and oil extraction, which is really of little benefit for me, but some people will become extremely wealthy because of it. I doubt anybody would argue the foolishness of preserving Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon or Zions. If you've never been to these places, do yourself a favor and go see them; they're amazing and they belong to future generations, they're not ours.

 

[Shooter19802003]

.


I'm not opposed to using land in a useful practical manner, but these areas are unbelievable and like no place on earth and the only reason they don't want the monument is so it can be used for mineral and oil extraction, which is really of little benefit for me, but some people will become extremely wealthy because of it.

Well....i call BS on that one! Everybody benefits from it. The computer or phone you are using is made with both petro and mined products. Not to mention everytime you drive your car, heat your home, eat food......pretty much everything you do revolves around oil and minerals!

 

[ben h]

Well....i call BS on that one! Everybody benefits from it. The computer or phone you are using is made with both petro and mined products. Not to mention everytime you drive your car, heat your home, eat food......pretty much everything you do revolves around oil and minerals!

That's funny, I'm in the power delivery business. I've powered up mines, oil fields, solar/ wind farms and built high voltage transmission all across the US and believe me there are places these activities are appropriate and necessary. This area is not one of them; there are ways to do this that have much fewer impacts. Yellowstone has some great geothermal potential for generating power and there's already a fair amount of infrastructure to do it pretty easily, should we harness that? I'm well aware of how the world gets the resources we consume.

 

[Where's Bruce?]

While i agree with this perspective: Benefits outweigh costs in transferring federal lands to states - American Lands Council my concern revolves around "certain states" with reputations for supreme stupidity like my own...California. One of the largest economies in the world and bankrupt due to libtard politics. Mountain lion moratorium with no sunset clause, Fish & Wildlife partners with Humane Society, Marine Protected Areas illegally adopted in violation of the state's own protocols, piss poor management of virtually everything (from water distribution to argiculture to dams bridges and roads) and why the hell are desalinization plants not being built to generate clean drinking water from the Pacific? So yes, the devil is in the details but if the transfer from Fed to State is to be a positive thing then the agreement MUST place clear requirements on what each state can and cannot do with the land and contain a clause specifying access be granted to all with limitations outlined for vehicles, horses, mechanized equipment (e-bikes, chainsaws, etc) and cattle grazing. It can work but "some states" are completely corrupt and will screw us over if given the opportunity. There is no obvious "side" to be on except the one limiting abuse of public lands by State and Federal agencies. JMO...I could be wrong. In some states it is clear transferring Federal land to the state will be beneficial...in others it could be disasterous.

 

[Shooter19802003]

That's funny, I'm in the power delivery business. I've powered up mines, oil fields, solar/ wind farms and built high voltage transmission all across the US and believe me there are places these activities are appropriate and necessary. This area is not one of them; there are ways to do this that have much fewer impacts. Yellowstone has some great geothermal potential for generating power and there's already a fair amount of infrastructure to do it pretty easily, should we harness that? I'm well aware of how the world gets the resources we consume.

Ahhh yes, the not in my backyard attitude. I want to consume all I want, but I don't want the source close by. Or, I want to consume....just make sure it doesn't effect things I like. Great argument

 

[ben h]

Not in my back yard argument, couldn't be further from the truth, the largest copper mine in the world, you can see from my house and it's honestly not in a bad place. I actually ran 2- 345,000 volt transmission lines to it so they can extract minerals and I sleep fine at night. I agree we use resources and consume power and there are good places to accomplish this and we need to be very careful where and how we choose to do this, because there's no going back once we do it and as I said before these aren't our lands, they belong to future generations and there are areas that are truly priceless; I've seen many of them.

Also, FYI, Bears Ears isn't close to anything substantial and there is hardly any infrastructure out there.

 

[bigdesert10]

I don't really care what we call them - monument, park, recreation area- so long as they stay public, accessible and huntable.

I also don't really feel like it's news that Patagonia is a left-leaning company, so this isn't surprising. I'm sure they make nice stuff. I've never bought it partly because I don't really support their positions on a number of issues, but mostly because I don't want to be mistaken for a Sun Valley yuppie when I'm fishing

 

[TJ]

While i agree with this perspective: Benefits outweigh costs in transferring federal lands to states - American Lands Council my concern revolves around "certain states" with reputations for supreme stupidity like my own...California. One of the largest economies in the world and bankrupt due to libtard politics. Mountain lion moratorium with no sunset clause, Fish & Wildlife partners with Humane Society, Marine Protected Areas illegally adopted in violation of the state's own protocols, piss poor management of virtually everything (from water distribution to argiculture to dams bridges and roads) and why the hell are desalinization plants not being built to generate clean drinking water from the Pacific? So yes, the devil is in the details but if the transfer from Fed to State is to be a positive thing then the agreement MUST place clear requirements on what each state can and cannot do with the land and contain a clause specifying access be granted to all with limitations outlined for vehicles, horses, mechanized equipment (e-bikes, chainsaws, etc) and cattle grazing. It can work but "some states" are completely corrupt and will screw us over if given the opportunity. There is no obvious "side" to be on except the one limiting abuse of public lands by State and Federal agencies. JMO...I could be wrong. In some states it is clear transferring Federal land to the state will be beneficial...in others it could be disasterous.

This article paints a pretty rosy picture. There are a whole lot of ifs and conditions to make it a positive report.

Have you read the BHA Sportsman Report:"Our Public Lands Are Not For Sale"?

I believe history shows the States are most likely to sell these public lands.

The States of Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming were granted 44.8 million acres of public land at Statehood. They now have 27.079 million acres at the time of this report.

I just don't see any positives of state ownership.

Sportsman Report: Our Public Lands are Not for Sale - DEV - Backcountry Hunters and Anglers

 

[Where's Bruce?]

This article paints a pretty rosy picture. There are a whole lot of ifs and conditions to make it a positive report.

Have you read the BHA Sportsman Report:"Our Public Lands Are Not For Sale"?

I believe history shows the States are most likely to sell these public lands.

The States of Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming were granted 44.8 million acres of public land at Statehood. They now have 27.079 million acres at the time of this report.

I just don't see any positives of state ownership.

Sportsman Report: Our Public Lands are Not for Sale - DEV - Backcountry Hunters and Anglers

If the population remained unchanged since these territories joined the Union, I would agree however...that's a pipe dream. The need for resources is always increasing as our population continues to explode.

 

[TJ]

If the population remained unchanged since these territories joined the Union, I would agree however...that's a pipe dream. The need for resources is always increasing as our population continues to explode.

Federally owned land does not eliminate recourse extraction. It is still grazed, logged, mined etc. In Oregon, it is quite often a special interest group that tries to block logging or other uses of the land, it is not the Federal government.

This is the case with the Elliot State Forest debacle.
A special interest group sues the State to stop the logging. Win loose or draw the State (we) have to pay their legal fees, go figure!!!!

 

[Shooter19802003]

It's not only about resources, but also a place to live, work and farm. We still have to feed, house and employ folks. I wish the feds would sell off some land here. The majority of my county is federal....by alot. Which makes housing expensive. Hard to build a house with no land. The land that is available is going up by the day...sucks.

 

[vanish]

a special interest group that tries to block logging or other uses of the land, it is not the Federal government.

Bingo! I get why the system for suing exists, but it is terribly abused. Moving the land from Fed to State won't stop that either, which is why the whole transfer argument is laughable.

 

[MattB]

It's rooted in logic. It's logical to say killing a baby is immoral and should be viewed as such legally, traditional marriage is traditionally a religious matter the gov't has no place in it, and the tax burden should be as little as possible for all. If that's emotional, emotional must be a synonym for logical.

P.s. with all this hate and vitriol I'm feeling triggered....where is the rokslide safe space? I'm assuming it's at a national executive monument. ...

Let's assume a woman is carrying twins, one dies in vitro mid-pregnancy and it is determined the other twin 's brain development ceased at about the same time such that its ability to survive post-partum is heavily in question. If it does survive, it will be not be sentient and will become a burden to its parents and to society. If I understand 5mile's and your positions correctly, legislation demanding the mother carry the twins to term is logical and hence desirable. To quote one of you "(it) make(s) sense". Is that what you believe?

By implication, anyone who is wiling to apply empathy (an emotion) when determining appropriate policy applying to such a situation is inherently flawed. Only the fetus's situation is considered. Again, logical.

And some would suggest that this it the perspective gained from taking into the account the big picture? On the contrary - it is amazing how small an intellect seems when it posits such a position.

 

[BuzzH]

It's not only about resources, but also a place to live, work and farm. We still have to feed, house and employ folks. I wish the feds would sell off some land here. The majority of my county is federal....by alot. Which makes housing expensive. Hard to build a house with no land. The land that is available is going up by the day...sucks.

If the Feds were to sell off some land in "your" county...it had better be at the market value...which wouldn't make it any more affordable than what is currently on the market.

Not to mention that the very reason "your" county is a desirable place to live is BECAUSE of the amount of public lands that people have access to. Chop it up, make it all private, and who the hell would want to live there anymore? I have no desire to turn "my" county, that has a lot of federal and state public lands, into Texas. The reason I live here is BECAUSE of the amount of access I have to public lands.

Be careful what you wish for...

 

[Shooter19802003]

I understand what you are saying to a point. A lot of the reason it is so high here is we are going through what Montana did 10 years ago. It is turning into a retirement mecca. There are no jobs here. The retirees come in and build huge homes. Kinda funny in a way. You see a shoddy 400 sqft cabin next to a 4k sqft log mcmansion. Trouble is, they are pricing out the locals. Most jobs here are around minimum wage or so. Kinda like sandpoint. Most of the homes there sit vacant 80% of the time. They are all vacation homes. Just sucks, that's all.

 

[sneaky]

If that type of language is important to you then the Patagonia article stated they "will sue" if public lands are taken. So it seems like both sides are doing their due diligence to be prepared the future.

I'll bring the popcorn if you want to watch Patagonia sue the Federal Govt. The outdoor industry had their opportunities to impose a tax on their goods similar to the Pittman Robertson Act. Every time it comes up they shoot it down. Sorry, but i don't feel sorry for those assholes. Paying $3 to park while you hike in carrying 2k worth of gear doesn't help support public lands. Paying their fair share thru a tax on goods that goes to support the very lands they build their business on is only fair. Hunters and anglers have been shouldering that burden for way too long.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[BuzzH]

I'll bring the popcorn if you want to watch Patagonia sue the Federal Govt. The outdoor industry had their opportunities to impose a tax on their goods similar to the Pittman Robertson Act. Every time it comes up they shoot it down. Sorry, but i don't feel sorry for those assholes. Paying $3 to park while you hike in carrying 2k worth of gear doesn't help support public lands. Paying their fair share thru a tax on goods that goes to support the very lands they build their business on is only fair. Hunters and anglers have been shouldering that burden for way too long.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Not true, PR/DJ Funds are not going to federal land management agencies to manage federal lands. They go to State GF agencies to manage wildlife.

WE could all do more for funding federal land management, I agree. A good first step would be contacting your Senators and Representatives and tell them to start fully funding land management agencies.

 

[sneaky]

Not true, PR/DJ Funds are not going to federal land management agencies to manage federal lands. They go to State GF agencies to manage wildlife.

WE could all do more for funding federal land management, I agree. A good first step would be contacting your Senators and Representatives and tell them to start fully funding land management agencies.

The very wildlife that those cretins sue the govt to stop sound management practices on. My initial assessment I'll stand by, every time the outdoor industry has been asked to step up, they've balked. They enjoy hiking and looking at wildlife, but they don't want to help out with funding for either wildlife or land. Their donating to Sierra Club and the like does nothing but pay salaries for execs and very little trickles down.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[Jason Snyder]

You do realize that public access and public land management does not exclusively entail conservation funding? While PR money MAY be used for a habitat enhancement on public land, hunters actually don't pay a significant amount of funding for general public land management. That is what Buzz was alluding to.

Yes, I agree that a PR type act pertaining to general land use/management would be a good thing. I don't pay a dime for using my mountain bike on USFS land. Maybe I should.