Let the Patagonia boycotts begin

topher89

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2012
Messages
705
Location
Colorado
Geez.... how dare they stand up for public lands. I can't believe an outdoor gear company would try and protect public lands....
 

JWP58

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2013
Messages
2,090
Location
Boulder, CO
Yes how dare the current administration simply review the national monuments, or question man made global warming. Never wore patagucci, and never will.

Just radical liberals being radical liberals. Making noise about nothing.
 
Last edited:

WV Mountaineer

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2016
Messages
1,910
Location
West Virginia
I've never bought a thing from the company and never will.



On a side note; topher, would you link something stating where Donald Trump threatens public lands?
 

topher89

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2012
Messages
705
Location
Colorado
Yes how dare the current administration simply announce a review of the national monuments, or question man made global warming. Never wore patagucci, and never will.

Just radical liberals being radical liberals. Making noise about nothing.
Well, Zinke has already proposed shrinking Bear's Ears which is heading in the direction of more than just a 'simple review'. And just like the 2nd Amendment, if an inch is given, a mile will be taken.

If Bear's Ears is shrunk, do you think that the administration will be done? Just shrink one monument and leave all the other public land alone? My guess is if Bear's Ears is shrunk, everything else will follow
 

dotman

1
Joined
Feb 24, 2012
Messages
8,201
Well, Zinke has already proposed shrinking Bear's Ears which is heading in the direction of more than just a 'simple review'. And just like the 2nd Amendment, if an inch is given, a mile will be taken.

If Bear's Ears is shrunk, do you think that the administration will be done? Just shrink one monument and leave all the other public land alone? My guess is if Bear's Ears is shrunk, everything else will follow

If shrunk doesn't it just go back to the federal public land status it previously had?

Shrunk doesn't mean sell, unless you have other proof that they plan to sell?
 

JWP58

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2013
Messages
2,090
Location
Boulder, CO
Well, Zinke has already proposed shrinking Bear's Ears which is heading in the direction of more than just a 'simple review'. And just like the 2nd Amendment, if an inch is given, a mile will be taken.

If Bear's Ears is shrunk, do you think that the administration will be done? Just shrink one monument and leave all the other public land alone? My guess is if Bear's Ears is shrunk, everything else will follow

Ah yes "proposed" "may" "could"....hypothetical possibilities being sold as "done deals". Hell I bet all the national monuments are going to be given to Russia...lol

But who knows, maybe after 8yrs of hell the demokrat's chickens are coming home to roost (in the words of the supreme leader's former pastor)
 
Last edited:

topher89

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2012
Messages
705
Location
Colorado
I've never bought a thing from the company and never will.



On a side note; topher, would you link something stating where Donald Trump threatens public lands?
Trump Administration Wants To Shrink Bears Ears National Monument : The Two-Way : NPR


Overnight Energy: Interior proposes shrinking Bears Ears | Trump says no to G7 climate statement | EPA delays chemical regulation | TheHill

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke recommends shrinking Bears Ears National Monument, with more federal lands to come

Access Denied

Both Fox News and NPR reported on Zinke's recommendation to shrink Bear's Ears. Hopefully the above sources represent something that everyone can agree is real news :D
 

topher89

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2012
Messages
705
Location
Colorado
Ah yes "proposed" "may" "could".

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.
 

topher89

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2012
Messages
705
Location
Colorado
If shrunk doesn't it just go back to the federal public land status it previously had?

Shrunk doesn't mean sell, unless you have other proof that they plan to sell?

My personal fear with this situation is not so much about Bear's Ears but the precedent it sets. To me it is like the 2nd Amendment. Give up an inch and lose a mile. If Bear's Ears can be shrunk, why can't other public lands?
 

HuntHarder

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2014
Messages
1,303
Location
Phoenix, Az
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?
 

texans42

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2013
Messages
1,570
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.

Patigona doing what they do best...BS smoke and mirror politics. Can't sell federal land. Turning some of it back into national forest or BLM isn't taken public land.
 

Backpack Hunter

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
3,157
Location
Some wilderness area, somewhere
The article stated a precedent - Wilson halved Mount Olympic National Monument - it was later restored to its full size. It didn't mention that President Eisenhower reduced the Great Sand Dunes (also now a national park) by 25 percent; and President Taft reduced the Navajo National Monument, which he himself had established just three years earlier, by nearly 90 percent.
The sky is not falling.
 

JWP58

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2013
Messages
2,090
Location
Boulder, CO
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?

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

MuleyFever

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
5,000
Location
S. UTAH
Does shrunk mean we lose the public land?

Well only time can tell but if it loses the monument status it can be on the table for sale down the road.

I may have missed something but from what I understood Patagonia is prepared to sue to protect public lands. I don't know what all the pitchforks are about but good for them for standing up for public lands.
 

JWP58

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2013
Messages
2,090
Location
Boulder, CO
Well only time can tell but if it loses the monument status it can be on the table for sale down the road.

I may have missed something but from what I understood Patagonia is prepared to sue to protect public lands. I don't know what all the pitchforks are about but good for them for standing up for public lands.


Standing up for public lands? Or towing the agenda of the left? There was much more to that article than just public land issues.
 

WyoRob

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2016
Messages
228
Location
Wyoming
The Patagonia wearing hippies can stage at sit in if they're so hurt by it. Aside from that, **** em.
 

MuleyFever

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
5,000
Location
S. UTAH
Standing up for public lands? Or towing the agenda of the left? There was much more to that article than just public land issues.

Then why aren't you attacking those points directly instead of a general attack against an effort to protect the monument.

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.

I'm for protecting public lands as much as possible. Rolling back a monument is not a good place to start in todays political climate where our public lands are at this moment under threat. This has nothing to do with Trump. This is state governments trying to get their hands on these lands for profit. Sure its not the end of the public lands here but why let it be even a little bit closer? Especially here in Utah where the assault is never ending.
 

texans42

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2013
Messages
1,570
Then why aren't you attacking those points directly instead of a general attack against an effort to protect the monument.

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.

I'm for protecting public lands as much as possible. Rolling back a monument is not a good place to start in todays political climate where our public lands are at this moment under threat. This has nothing to do with Trump. This is state governments trying to get their hands on these lands for profit. Sure its not the end of the public lands here but why let it be even a little bit closer? Especially here in Utah where the assault is never ending.

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