The President Stole Your Land!

[Ben]

And the drama keeps on coming. This certainly seems to be the week for hyperbole.

Actually, he did the opposite. People who don't wear $1000 in outwear can once again engage in non-politically correct forms of recreation.

https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2017/12/04/the-president-stole-your-land-patagonia-goes-full-drama-queen-over-reductions-to-monuments/

[French G.]

If making that monument was such a huge gesture of conservation to our future generations wouldn't it have been better done in February 2008 rather than Dec. 2016? Or better yet, how about a park bill and debate? I grew up dead center of a community that the federal government destroyed at the behest of a monied special interest to make a park. It's a nice park, but let me tell you, nobody has forgotten, even if no one from then is still alive. Bonus points, I lived in the only community to be promised a park entrance, most likely on the historical over mountain road, but no park entrance. People lost their homes, forcibly removed and the fabled, promised tourist dollars went elsewhere. If you can't make a park in the light of day and let people vote on it, then maybe it's not such a slick idea.

[Hawkmoon]

And the drama keeps on coming. This certainly seems to be the week for hyperbole.

Actually, he did the opposite. People who don't wear $1000 in outwear can once again engage in non-politically correct forms of recreation.

Now, if Trump will just undeclare Clinton's "roadless initiative," maybe some of those hundreds or thousands of miles of existing Jeep roads all over the west can get back to being Jeep roads.

For those who may not remember, Bubba declared huge areas as being "roadless," thereby making it unlawful to operate motorized equipment in them. But they weren't devoid of roads; they had miles and miles of forest roads running through them. By pretending the roads don't exist, the .gov eliminated maintenance, which is expected to contribute to erosion and damage to the local ecosystems.

[Scout26]

And Patagonia goes full-on Stupid and decides to sue Trump over the decision:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/12/05/the-president-stole-your-land-patagonia-rei-blast-trump-on-national-monument-rollbacks/

Sorry Ron, but REI lost my business....

[Ben]

And Patagonia goes full-on Stupid and decides to sue Trump over the decision:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/12/05/the-president-stole-your-land-patagonia-rei-blast-trump-on-national-monument-rollbacks/

Sorry Ron, but REI lost my business....

There's probably a good argument that they're playing to their shareholders and customers. Much like when people were doing the Ivanka Trump protests, it actually increased sales of her goods. I predict an increase in people wearing a Patagonia label in all the Starbucks, Trader Joes, and Whole Foods. They're still wrong though.

[230RN]

Jeeze.  Has anyone picked on Trump for the potholes in the roads yet?

[Ron]

And Patagonia goes full-on Stupid and decides to sue Trump over the decision:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/12/05/the-president-stole-your-land-patagonia-rei-blast-trump-on-national-monument-rollbacks/

Sorry Ron, but REI lost my business....

The company has gone full speed ahead politically progressive on multiple fronts. Business decisions being made based on political ideology vs whats best for the company.  

It is probably the beginning of the end. Progressives always eat their own.  

I certainly understand, and there are plenty of other options when buying outdoor gear.

Alienating half of your potential customer base seems like a bad business decision, but what do I know?

[Marnoot]

Are there any major outdoor retailers that aren't full lefty at this point? They all voted with their feet and moved the Outdoor Retailers Expo from Utah to Colorado recently in response to Utah's push for exactly what just happened. I can't think of any off-hand any that weren't publicly opposed to the reduction in monument size.

[Jamisjockey]

Are there any major outdoor retailers that aren't full lefty at this point? They all voted with their feet and moved the Outdoor Retailers Expo from Utah to Colorado recently in response to Utah's push for exactly what just happened. I can't think of any off-hand any that weren't publicly opposed to the reduction in monument size.

As an outdoor enthusiast it's frustrating.  Lefty outdoorspeople are horrible about "let's close it to everything but our niche sport". 

[Ron]

https://www.theonion.com/patagonia-introduces-new-high-performance-jacket-specia-1821046758

[mtnbkr]

As an outdoor enthusiast it's frustrating.  Lefty outdoorspeople are horrible about "let's close it to everything but our niche sport". 

Tell me about it.  I have little desire to socialize with most mountain bikers as a result.

Chris

[Ben]

https://www.theonion.com/patagonia-introduces-new-high-performance-jacket-specia-1821046758

Even though it's The Onion, it's pretty spot on. Ron might have some actual numbers, but I'd wager 1/3 of the expedition wear sold at REI, Patagonia, and North Face rarely leaves the city.

That's part of the problem, as many of the "outdoor enthusiasts" who rag on hunters and fishermen and horseback riders and 4byers (and heck, even mountain bikers) don't really do a lot of outdoor activities. They just want to push the "view from a distance" philosophy.

I'm not against preservation, parks, or monuments at all. However, I AM against the, "If 10,000 acres is good, 1,000,0000 acres is better!" philosophy. If they keep that up, the actual "special places" will be the tiny tracts of public land where you can still go and make a damn campfire to cook the damn fish you just caught.

[charby]

I'm a big fan of public land, mostly because I live in a state that has very little and I have taken advantage of if in MN, WI, MI, WY, CO and MT, that being said I can get behind much of the ideas in this article.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454370/monuments-executive-order-trump-administration-utah-bears-eagle-grand-staircase-escalante-act-antiquities-act-1906?utm_source=Social&utm_medium=Facebook&utm_campaign=Regan

[Hawkmoon]

Even though it's The Onion, it's pretty spot on. Ron might have some actual numbers, but I'd wager 1/3 of the expedition wear sold at REI, Patagonia, and North Face rarely leaves the city.

Probably closer to 90 percent -- especially for North Face.

[Hawkmoon]

I'm a big fan of public land, mostly because I live in a state that has very little and I taken advantage of if in MN, WI, MI, WY, CO and MT, that being said I can get behind much of the ideas in this article.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454370/monuments-executive-order-trump-administration-utah-bears-eagle-grand-staircase-escalante-act-antiquities-act-1906?utm_source=Social&utm_medium=Facebook&utm_campaign=Regan

From the article:

In the end, the best outcome would be to reform the Antiquities Act to put an end once and for all to its abuse by lame-duck, legacy-seeking presidents. There is a right way to set aside large areas of federal land in a relatively permanent way, and it’s through legislative action — just as national parks and federal wilderness areas are created. Executive actions that seek to bypass that process are, and should be, prone to fail.

Amen!

[Ben]

I'm a big fan of public land,

I am too. I've enjoyed lots of adventures on public land throughout the West. I suppose it's somewhat contrary to a libertarian-leaning, private property rights philosophy, but I have always liked doing the outdoor stuff I have done without "asking permission".

That said, the key word to me is PUBLIC. It's public land when it's multi-use. If you can arbitrarily decide that hunters and horseback riders are bad and prohibited, but photographers and bicyclists are good and allowed, it's not really public. Public multi-use means there might be some stuff going on that I don't like.

I expect that behavior out of NPS, but more and more over the last couple of decades, I've been seeing Forest Service and BLM implementing the same kinds of restrictions as NPS does in parks. Part of public land should be recreational variety.

[charby]

I am too. I've enjoyed lots of adventures on public land throughout the West. I suppose it's somewhat contrary to a libertarian-leaning, private property rights philosophy, but I have always liked doing the outdoor stuff I have done without "asking permission".

That said, the key word to me is PUBLIC. It's public land when it's multi-use. If you can arbitrarily decide that hunters and horseback riders are bad and prohibited, but photographers and bicyclists are good and allowed, it's not really public. Public multi-use means there might be some stuff going on that I don't like.

I expect that behavior out of NPS, but more and more over the last couple of decades, I've been seeing Forest Service and BLM implementing the same kinds of restrictions as NPS does in parks. Part of public land should be recreational variety.

I'm also worried if they put up public land for sale (as some propose), that the ones with $$$ will buy it and shut down access to everyone.

They fixed the mining lease issues where folks took advantage of public ground to build a vacations home several years ago. 

[230RN]

I suppose it's somewhat contrary to a libertarian-leaning, private property rights philosophy, but I have always liked doing the outdoor stuff I have done without "asking permission".

Spot on.  But you're talking as someone with a sense of balance about these matters. Most of the Lefties just want to ban anything hairy-assed.

I'm also worried if they put up public land for sale (as some propose), that the ones with $$$ will buy it and shut down access to everyone.

I'm afraid of Robert Redford buying up half the Grasslands.  And Ben & Jerry's ice cream the other half, just to keep the Deplorables  out.

Terry

[Ben]

I'm afraid of Robert Redford buying up half the Grasslands.  And Ben & Jerry's ice cream the other half, just to keep the Deplorables  out.

Terry

It doesn't even have to be the progressives buying it up.

Not exactly the same thing, but I read that a couple of conservative millionaires from Texas bought up 100s of thousands of acres of timber company land in Idaho. The state had always had an agreement with the timber companies to allow hunting, fishing, and offroading on timber company property, most of which adjoined BLM and other public land. The Texas guys started fencing it all off and hired 24hr security to monitor all the property and keep everyone out.

Since they were buying private property, they had every right to rescind the agreement with the state and put up the no trespassing signs. However, if these same guys were to buy public land put up for sale, they would likely do the same thing. Whoever were to buy public land would likely lock everyone (or certain people/activities) out. Whether it's Ben & Jerry's making it a giant hippie commune, or a Texas oil baron fencing it off as a private hunting range for him and his buddies (or charging $10K for hunting access), it all becomes land going to one special interest group or another.

To me, there's just something uniquely American about "open range" as it were. Being able to just go into the wild without a "by your leave". I could care less if there are hippies running around on it spreading patchouli everywhere as long as they don't care about me and my guns on it.

[Hawkmoon]

I'm also worried if they put up public land for sale (as some propose), that the ones with $$$ will buy it and shut down access to everyone.

YES!

There has been a lot of angst in recent years in Chile, of all places, because a wealthy American has bought up HUGE chunks of Patagonia and made it off limits to everything other than the aforementioned hikers and photographers. (And, I believe, is some parts not even open to them.)

[230RN]

YES!

There has been a lot of angst in recent years in Chile, of all places, because a wealthy American has bought up HUGE chunks of Patagonia and made it off limits to everything other than the aforementioned hikers and photographers. (And, I believe, is some parts not even open to them.)

https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/conservation/2014/7/15/after-23-years-of-buying-up-land-in-chile-doug-tompkins-to-d.html

Tompkins first became enthralled by the mountainous region of Chile and Argentina back in the 1960s as a backpacking teenager, and would eventually relocate to South Chile full-time, after building his fortune as the founder of clothing labels Esprit and The North Face. Since 1993, he’s been married to Kris Tompkins (formerly McDivitt), who was CEO of Patagonia, Inc., outdoor clothing company founded by Yvon Chouinard.

(Note article date of 2014. Doug Tompkins is now deceased.)

Terry

[Ron]

Most all of my vacation and recreational time is spent on public land. I've never considered myself an environmentalist but a very strong conservationist.  

I was up in the Boundary Waters area this year where there is a move to open up a sulfide mine for copper. The locals I spoke to seem to be mostly in favor of increased mining much to my surprise. The media I'd read led me to believe most Minnesotans were against it. I think the largest open pit mine (iron) in the country is not far from there also. Ely was started as a mining town. There is a National Park right there that is a huge mine that shut down in the 60's.



Generally I try not to take strong stands on areas I'm not familiar with as you can't trust most sources of information.