OP-ED: Hunters & Hikers

grizzly

Long Time Member
Messages
5,705
"Who says that hunters and hikers can't get along?

In the past two decades, many of us who love the outdoors and care about protecting our lands and waters have allowed ourselves to be divided. No longer. The only way we're going to save the rivers and oceans and forests and mountains is if we put aside our differences and stand together for the places we love.

And we are.

One of us grew up climbing 3,000-foot rock faces in Yosemite and started Patagonia, a California clothing company devoted to experiencing and protecting wild places. The other grew up in a Montana duck blind, shot his first whitetail at 14, and now leads Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, North America?s fastest growing organization of sportsmen and women. We don't agree on everything, but we both view America?s public lands and waters as worth fighting for.

For much of our country?s history, so did leaders from both parties. A Republican president, Theodore Roosevelt, created the U.S. Forest Service, established the first national parks and wildlife refuges, and protected 230 million acres of public land. And it was a Democrat from Nevada, Sen. Key Pittman, who championed one of the most important and enduring funding mechanisms for wildlife conservation, the Pittman-Robertson Act. And more recently, Vice President ##### Cheney, who has never been mistaken for a liberal, said that one of the most important things he ever did for his home state of Wyoming was to champion the Wyoming Wilderness Act, stopping development on almost one million acres of public lands.

In today?s polarized political climate, even traditionally bipartisan priorities are in jeopardy. Wild places beloved by hikers and hunters alike are in danger of being pillaged by powerful industries, closed to public access or outright destroyed.

Here are three examples that demand urgent action:

First, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke is overruling the Forest Service and paving the way for industrial sulfide-ore copper mining near the Boundary Waters Wilderness in Minnesota. This is the most visited wilderness area in the nation, and local communities rely on the nearly 4,500 jobs in the area generated by the outdoors recreation industry. Across Minnesota, 140,000 people are employed in outdoor recreation, but they apparently don't carry as much weight with Zinke as the deep-pocketed mining companies.

Second, Congress and the Department of Interior appear ready to let the Land and Water Conservation Fund die. Established in 1965, the LWCF uses a small percentage of revenues from offshore drilling leases to conserve and expand public access to parks, wildlife habitats and public recreation areas. It's helped protect 5 million acres and generated $4 in economic value for every $1 invested. Nearly every county in America has benefited ? all without depending on taxpayer dollars. Our congressional leaders need to put aside their differences ? just like we have ? and reauthorize the LWCF for the good of our citizens.

Third, public lands are under assault like never before. President Trump slashed the size of the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments in Utah, and already at least 20 new mining claims have been staked in places sacred to Native American tribes and treasured by outdoor enthusiasts. To make matters worse, Sen. Mike Lee from Utah is working hard to transfer all public lands to individual states so they can be opened for development. Lee also wants to strip presidents of the power to conserve lands and waters under the Antiquities Act. Make no mistake: This will lead to a massive ransacking ? and destruction ? of America?s public lands.

Both of us are sick and tired of politics getting in the way of good, sensible policy. We?re coming together to sound the alarm because these threats are dire and the stakes high. Now is the time for everyone who loves the outdoors to speak up, whether you feel more comfortable in camouflage or Capilene.

We have an important opportunity this November: Let's send a strong message with our votes and elect leaders who want to protect our lands and waters. If hunters and treehuggers can come together, maybe Washington will too, and once again make conservation a bipartisan priority.

If we do, the forces that divide us won't stand a chance."

Yvon Chouinard is a pioneering mountaineer and founder of the outdoor company, Patagonia, based in Ventura, Calif. Land Tawney is a fifth-generation Montanan and president and CEO of Backcountry Hunters & Anglers.

https://www.denverpost.com/2018/07/23/hunters-hikers-unite-to-protect-beloved-public-lands-waters/
 
You might want to post this on the political form not the hunting form.

Everyone makes a mistake from time to time.
 
Barf.


Look, I think this person probably has some good points and maybe an agenda or two is worth our notice, but that article is written like so many other hit and spin articles we read these days. If they want to make a difference just write a straight piece instead of spin. We will follow if we believe but when you start writing spin I just switch off.
 
Grizz the problem is he points out all the problems of Republicans but none of Democrats do it is not hard to see where he stands.
The deal about the Grand Staircase is a complete lie the BLM tried opening up the mining leases but Zinke put a stop on that and said he will not sell out public land.
PLEASE GIVE ME SOME NAMES OF A POLITICIAN THAT WILL ONLY SUPPORT WHAT I LIKE AND NEAVER SUPPORT WHAT I DO NOT LIKE AND ALSO MAKE EVERYONE BELIEVE THE WAY I BELIEVE SO I WILL ALWAYS BE RIGHT.
 
In preparation for the San Juan Elk Ridge unit becoming part of the Bears Ears national monument, literally dozens of side roads that have been used for decades have been closed by the Forest Service, greatly limiting hunter access. Even now that the monument has been reduced in size, these roads remain closed because the tree huggers have not given up on the hope that the monument size reduction being overruled by some liberal activist judge.

What we are heading toward in that area is one access road that will soon be paved, and everything else will be closed to vehicle access. The young and the beautiful might like this idea, but the old farts need more vehicle access.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-24-18 AT 08:49PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Aug-24-18 AT 08:48?PM (MST)

+1 Grizz
I will be voting
Mike Lee needs to go

States like TX ( ya that's you Trollstate) can keep your 2% public lands. PA is just as bad.
I'll keep my 66% public land paradise.

"Wildlife and its habitat cannot speak. So
we must and we will."
Theadore Roosevelt
 
Look no further than the state of New Jersey as an example of how things will be ran with state control. Black bear hunting ban on the most dense Bear population in the country.


"Wildlife and its habitat cannot speak. So
we must and we will."
Theadore Roosevelt
 
>
>Look no further than the state
>of New Jersey as an
>example of how things will
>be ran with state control.
>Black bear hunting ban on
>the most dense Bear population
>in the country.
>
>
>"Wildlife and its habitat cannot speak.
>So
>we must and we will."
>Theadore Roosevelt

What is your point BBoB is not most hunting in the USA state controled? Maybe not Texas but isn't Texas the "evil empire".
 
>
>Look no further than the state
>of New Jersey as an
>example of how things will
>be ran with state control.
>Black bear hunting ban on
>the most dense Bear population
>in the country.
>
>
>"Wildlife and its habitat cannot speak.
>So
>we must and we will."
>Theadore Roosevelt

Hasn't New Jersey been under Democratic control for decades? I think it's a perfect example of why you don't want Democrats!


#livelikezac
 
Montana often elects Democrats and Texas elects Republicans. We know which has better public land access and hunting, so what's your point?

Grizzly

-----------------------------------------
"This is a classic case of a handful of greedy fly fishermen getting too greedy." -Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as told to KUTV

"It's time to revisit the widely accepted principle in the United States and Canada that game is a public resource."
-Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as quoted in Anchorage Daily News
 
>>
>>Look no further than the state
>>of New Jersey as an
>>example of how things will
>>be ran with state control.
>>Black bear hunting ban on
>>the most dense Bear population
>>in the country.
>>
>>
>>"Wildlife and its habitat cannot speak.
>>So
>>we must and we will."
>>Theadore Roosevelt
>
>Hasn't New Jersey been under Democratic
>control for decades? I think
>it's a perfect example of
>why you don't want Democrats!
>
>
>
>#livelikezac
+1
 
So now we know Grizz you got the Democrats bow we have something to go on. Not a problem if that is the what you support but it helps me understand your wayof thinking.
So let's play a game Grizz you name a public office Dem that supports public land, hunting, multi land use, regulated mineral extraction (because it is important to keeping this country moving forward), baby rights (not a fetus), and will stand firm on the second amendment. After you name one public office Dem I will give you a Repub that supports all that.
 
Hey grizz, name the only other state, other than the 13 colonies, that took control of all its land within its borders upon being granted statehood?




#livelikezac
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-25-18 AT 09:40AM (MST)[p]Uh-oh... Anybody-But-Don has brought abortion rights into the discussion for some unknown reason.

DW, I have no desire to research 49 State Constitutions as part of a homework project. But your question does allude to the fact that you concede that the Utah Enabling Act clearly gives the People (managed by the federal government) all previously unclaimed lands within it's border.

I'm a registered Republican, but I'm proudly not the b!tch of their party waiting like a lap dog being told what to do, how to think, and who to vote for. Some people think one party is 100% right and the other is 100% wrong. Once a person starts thinking that, the party dictates their opinions instead of the other way around.

Name one Democrat that wants to privatize public lands and I'll name five Republicans.

Since some of you so clearly only see things in blue and red, does it bother you that California has more public land hunting opportunities than Texas?

Grizzly

-----------------------------------------
"This is a classic case of a handful of greedy fly fishermen getting too greedy." -Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as told to KUTV

"It's time to revisit the widely accepted principle in the United States and Canada that game is a public resource."
-Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as quoted in Anchorage Daily News
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-25-18 AT 10:02AM (MST)[p]
>DW, I have no desire to
>research 49 State Constitutions as
>part of a homework project.
>But your question does allude
>to the fact that you
>concede that the Utah Enabling
>Act clearly gives the People
>(managed by the federal government)
>all previously unclaimed lands within
>it's border.
>
>I'm a registered Republican, but I'm
>proudly not the b!tch of
>their party waiting like a
>lap dog being told what
>to do, how to think,
>and who to vote for.
>Some people think one party
>is 100% right and the
>other is 100% wrong. Once
>a person starts thinking that,
>the party dictates their opinions
>instead of the other way
>around.
>
>Name one Democrat that wants to
>privatize public lands and I'll
>name five Republicans.
>
>Since some of you so clearly
>only see things in blue
>and red, does it bother
>you that California has more
>public land hunting opportunities than
>Texas?
>
>Grizzly
>
>-----------------------------------------
>"This is a classic case of
>a handful of greedy fly
>fishermen getting too greedy."
-Don
>Peay, Founder of SFW, as
>told to KUTV
>
>"It's time to revisit the widely
>accepted principle in the United
>States and Canada that game
>is a public resource."

>-Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as
>quoted in Anchorage Daily News
>



I'll save you the 3 second Google search from your busy schedule, its Texas. So your using Texas in your arguments for something that happened nearly 173 years ago. It's right there with comparing the state trust lands program to today's situation. A few things have changed the past couple hundred years, I'd bring you up to speed but I really dont have the desire to. And I'd eat up a lot of founders bandwidth.

P.S. I'm registered unaffiliated but I've never come across a Democrat politician I could stomach. Some years I just hold my nose and pick the smaller pile of chit.


#livelikezac
 
And I don't think Patagonia is being sincere. He just wants to sell his over priced gear to as many people as he can, so he says he loves everybody.

I don't know why we have to be so one sided....like the only two options are rape the land for eternity, or hands off completely.

Even in California there are huge ranches that log timber every year, run cattle, and they have the best deer, elk, grouse, quail, and turkey hunting in the State. The rest of California public land is mostly an unregulated waste land that burns uncontrolled every year. It's a total waste of everything. Check the deer hunter success rates on public land. With a few exceptions (like 10 available tags a year) it's a joke. The majority of people just want the land to stay public but managed for the best of everything. Why can't we do that? Because the preservationists and anti-hunters don't want it. That's why. So be careful who you get in bed with.
 
>P.S. I'm registered unaffiliated but I've
>never come across a Democrat
>politician I could stomach. Some
>years I just hold my
>nose and pick the smaller
>pile of chit.

Hey DW, are you in Rob Bishop's district? If so, take a look at the third-party challenger Eric Eliason. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

Grizzly

-----------------------------------------
"This is a classic case of a handful of greedy fly fishermen getting too greedy." -Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as told to KUTV

"It's time to revisit the widely accepted principle in the United States and Canada that game is a public resource."
-Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as quoted in Anchorage Daily News
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-25-18 AT 11:13AM (MST)[p]Nah I'm in Colorado grizz. We've got our share of problems here too. Well said eel, as usual.



#livelikezac
 
I wonder if Patagonia is paying the tag price for any anti-hunter that draws a tag and agrees to not hunt in Utah like they have in other areas?
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-25-18 AT 10:47PM (MST)[p]I can't remember who pointed that out about Wyoming in a previous thread, but it's definitely not good from Patagonia.

Neither is NRA aligning with oil companies to support bills opposed by virtually every hunting organization.

Neither is Toyota supporting SFW while they work to close stream access.

Wal-Mart quit selling AR-15's, so they're out.

We could go on and on about people that offend us, or we can look for common ground and try and foster friendships and alliances... which is the entire point of the op-ed.

Grizzly

-----------------------------------------
"This is a classic case of a handful of greedy fly fishermen getting too greedy." -Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as told to KUTV

"It's time to revisit the widely accepted principle in the United States and Canada that game is a public resource."
-Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as quoted in Anchorage Daily News
 
None of those other examples you shared literally took a tag out of a hunter's hand to prevent them from hunting.

So, not all that analogous, and definitely not relevant. You know the term red herring, so I won't explain it.

This is not only is not "not good" from Patagonia. It is a lot worse than that.
 
Government spending is through the roof. Abortion is 100% legal. The southern border is still wide open. Obama care is still here.

So where are all those "priorities" that the repubs have fixed with 100% control from potus to house, to Senate, to scouts?

Mike Lee is writing 3 bills on selling YOUR LAND.

Where is his bill outlawing planned parenthood?

Where is Rob Bishops bill on capping spending?

And before you tell me about their "staunch support" of the 2A,THERE IS NO BILL ATTEMPTING TO END IT. It is being backdoors through corporate pressure, and downstream challenges.

If Yvon has killed 1 deer, caught 1 fish, spent 1 day in the mtn, it 100% more than Mike Lee ever has.
His daddy was a law professor, and DC insider. You clowns talk about draining the swamp, yet the leader of this sell off is a 2ND GENERATION SWAMP RAT.

You want power as hunters. REAL POWER. You send Rob Bishop packing, letting it be well known who came out against him.

Even more power? Send Mike Lee early to his oil lobbying job.

The Tea Party gained REAL power when they sent Eric Cantor packing.

You guys listen to the Utah repubs with their , "pro 2a, small gov, no abortion" speeches every election. WHEN DO YOU GET YOUR PRIORITIES MET? Orin Hatch gave the same speach for half a century, YOU GOT NOTHING.

Just keeping doing the same thing, and hope for a different outcome.




From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
>None of those other examples you
>shared literally took a tag
>out of a hunter's hand
>to prevent them from hunting.
>
>
>So, not all that analogous, and
>definitely not relevant. You know
>the term red herring, so
>I won't explain it.
>
>This is not only is not
>"not good" from Patagonia. It
>is a lot worse than
>that.

Those aren't red herrings unless you assume that your top priority is shared by everybody else.

If your number one priority is AR-15's, you'd never shop at Walmart or D!cks Sporting Goods again.

If your number one priority is stream access for fishing, you'd join Patagonia and dump Toyota.

If your number one priority is wilderness protection, you'd gladly join Patagonia for supporting wild places while NRA is inexplicably lobbying to drill them.

You can have your sacred cow, but so can others. It doesn't make it a red herring, it makes it a difference of opinion and priority.

Grizzly

-----------------------------------------
"This is a classic case of a handful of greedy fly fishermen getting too greedy." -Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as told to KUTV

"It's time to revisit the widely accepted principle in the United States and Canada that game is a public resource."
-Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as quoted in Anchorage Daily News
 
No Grizz, you're wrong. Indirect support for a company that has a position does not equal directly taking a certain position.

You are connecting dots. I'm showing that Patagonia has directly hurt hunters and done anti-hunting things. Not just gave money to an anti-hunting group, or gave other indirect support for a company that stopped selling one type of gun. Patagonia actively worked to take tags out of the hands of hunters. That is not the same as Toyota supporting SFW, who opposed stream access in Utah. Any attempt to claim these are equal are either due to ignorance, or an attempt to confuse the issues and distract. I do not find you an ignorant person. So I'm going with the other option.

Hoss on the other hand? His post clearly shows he doesn't have a clue.
 
The 2nd Amendment is absolutely a red herring in this discussion, by the way. It has nothing to do with what we are talking about. It makes me wonder what you are afraid of coming to light if that is where you are going to continue to go?

Patagonia is not a friend of hunters. Period.
 
And just for three in a row...

We are on a hunting forum, in the general hunting section, in a thread titled about hunting and hikers.

It should not be surprising that the "sacred cow" for this discussion is hunting. Not surprising at all.
 
You're smart enough to expand the discussion, Vanilla. My point has to do with your attempt to demonize a company for a particular position with which you disagree. If you expand that and demand complete fealty from all corporations you're going to run out of friends really quickly.

Do you suppose there are anti-SFW folks that refuse to do business with Toyota? I bet there are.

Do you suppose there are folks that left the NRA because of their pro-extraction stance? I'm one of them. NRA attempted to turn the tables on Yeti with the same boycott tactic earlier this year.

Do you suppose some people refuse to shop at D!cks because they quit selling AR-15's. I'm sure there are.

I left NRA over their positions, own an ar-15 with a silencer but don't really care about D!cks, bought a Yeti soft-sided cooler and like it, am anti-SFW but that has nothing to do with why I don't buy a Toyota, and don't like Patagonia's position on bison and grizzly hunting but appreciate their work on public access and willingness to work with hunting groups on behalf of public access.

These examples aren't a red herring and they aren't an attempt at moral relativism, they are merely examples of differing opinions and priorities about whom to support and whom not to support.

I like my Yeti and couldn't care less about D!cks; a hardcore NRA Fan would likely boycott both. That doesn't mean I'm anti-gun, just that those positions aren't that offensive to me compared to public land issues.

No one person gets to declare which of countless possible political positions are acceptable to everybody else and which are unforgivable.

Grizzly

-----------------------------------------
"This is a classic case of a handful of greedy fly fishermen getting too greedy." -Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as told to KUTV

"It's time to revisit the widely accepted principle in the United States and Canada that game is a public resource."
-Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as quoted in Anchorage Daily News
 
>And just for three in a
>row...
>
>We are on a hunting forum,
>in the general hunting section,
>in a thread titled about
>hunting and hikers.
>
>It should not be surprising that
>the "sacred cow" for this
>discussion is hunting. Not surprising
>at all.

Wilderness protection, stream access, and gun rights are certainly germane to hunting and hiking. The examples are apropos.

Grizzly

-----------------------------------------
"This is a classic case of a handful of greedy fly fishermen getting too greedy." -Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as told to KUTV

"It's time to revisit the widely accepted principle in the United States and Canada that game is a public resource."
-Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as quoted in Anchorage Daily News
 
>And just for three in a
>row...
>
>We are on a hunting forum,
>in the general hunting section,
>in a thread titled about
>hunting and hikers.
>
>It should not be surprising that
>the "sacred cow" for this
>discussion is hunting. Not surprising
>at all.

The saddest part, you didn't read the Lee speach. You saw the R, and that was it. The same R behind the sagebrush rebellion of Lee's hero Orin Hatch.

You keep talking about Patagonia "actually" taking tags. How many tags are available on Wilks Bros land? How about Andarko?

Your so busy worrying about this year. This years tag.

Oh, and for the record, SFW was a driving force in reducing deer tag numbers to today's numbers, which was a loss of about 160,000 tags, but who's counting?






From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-26-18 AT 10:04PM (MST)[p]But Vanilla. Id be curious. Which part of Lee's speach did you agree with? Which part specifically was pro hunter?

Since you have decided we must agree 100% with any person or group in this fight, am I to believe you 100% agree with Lee?

How much influence and power do you suppose hunters have? We don't have gazillions of dollars like the petro companies. We don't have our own lobby companies. When was the last Utah politician that ran on pro hunting? Or for that matter ACTUALLY hunted?


I'm also curious. Have you looked into who Patagonia does business with? Are they now disavowed as well?

Then last, I'm pretty sure Trump ended imports of elephants from Africa. How many tags did that take away? So now he's anti hunter, and as such you could never support him, correct? So you'll vote Dem for pres, right?

Its a stupid game your playing.



From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
>Grizz the problem is he points
>out all the problems of
>Republicans but none of Democrats
>do it is not hard
>to see where he stands.
>
>The deal about the Grand Staircase
>is a complete lie the
>BLM tried opening up the
>mining leases but Zinke put
>a stop on that and
>said he will not sell
>out public land.
>PLEASE GIVE ME SOME NAMES OF
>A POLITICIAN THAT WILL ONLY
>SUPPORT WHAT I LIKE AND
>NEAVER SUPPORT WHAT I DO
>NOT LIKE AND ALSO MAKE
>EVERYONE BELIEVE THE WAY I
>BELIEVE SO I WILL ALWAYS
>BE RIGHT.

Why does public land need be a Rep/Dem issue? Right now the repubs are against us, we should make them pay.

Then when the Dems burn us, we can get them too.




From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
Grizz, if you want to expand the discussion to things that really don't matter, that's fine. But don't start acting like Hoss and putting words in people?s mouths while you do it. I guess if Don Peay came out with an op-ed saying fishermen and ranchers should work together, it is safe to say that I would have the exact same response about SFW as I do about Patagonia. But Don Peay didn't do that. It was the idiot, anti-hunter owner of Patagonia that did in this thread. Hence, the reason why I called out Patagonia. I generally don't start calling out D!cks Sporting Goods randomly for stopping to sell AR-15s in a thread about Patagonia. It ain?t rocket science. I'm not good at the chain reaction stuff, but I will call out wolves in sheeps clothing. And that, sir, is Patagonia.

Hoss, go pound sand. You know nothing of which you speak.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-27-18 AT 09:11AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Aug-27-18 AT 09:08?AM (MST)

>Grizz, if you want to expand
>the discussion to things that
>really don't matter, that's fine.
>But don't start acting like
>Hoss and putting words in
>people?s mouths while you do
>it. I guess if Don
>Peay came out with an
>op-ed saying fishermen and ranchers
>should work together, it is
>safe to say that I
>would have the exact same
>response about SFW as I
>do about Patagonia. But Don
>Peay didn't do that. It
>was the idiot, anti-hunter owner
>of Patagonia that did in
>this thread. Hence, the reason
>why I called out Patagonia.
>I generally don't start calling
>out D!cks Sporting Goods randomly
>for stopping to sell AR-15s
>in a thread about Patagonia.
>It ain?t rocket science. I'm
>not good at the chain
>reaction stuff, but I will
>call out wolves in sheeps
>clothing. And that, sir, is
>Patagonia.
>
>Hoss, go pound sand. You know
>nothing of which you speak.
>


Its pretty simple. You listened to his speach and agreed with him. Or you listened to him outright lie, but are willing to look past it because he's an R. Nothing he said was even close to factually correct.

Second. I ran into JMO a month or so back. We stood on Maverick parking lot discussing this. I told him, like ill tell you. If SFW PUBLICALLY issuses a statement that they oppose land transfer, I WILL SIGN MEMBERSHIP AT YOUR HOUSE, and ill bring Grizz with me.

Patagonia is an $800 million dollar company. If they want to burn that on something that helps us, its good for us, our money can go elsewhere. Including fighting them over Grizzlies and buffalo.

Vanilla. Since you missed it, this is Grizz post.

It's time to revisit the widely accepted principle in the United States and Canada that game is a public resource."
-Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as quoted in Anchorage Daily News

Seems don has gone on record with his anti hunting thoughts.

From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
Is Hossblur and tristate the same person? Inquiring minds must know...

(At the risk of offending tristate, of course)
 
That's all you've got?

I was like you. Super conservative, anti fed, disliked the granola and Subaru crowd.

Then I heard Newberg say there can't be gray areas in this debate. I started reading PAST the "states rights", or "green decoy" headlines. When you get in it a little way you start to notice WHO is pushing this. In short, who is paying for it. Mike Lee is just the latest in a string of puppets. Unlike you, I don't assume your dumb, I read your stuff, but I don't believe you've looked deep enough. If you have, and can still stand on the sidelines, I don't get it.

I don't backpack. Never been in a wilderness area. I own over 30 guns, sxs, atv, 2 gas guzzling trucks. I'm pro public grazing, and have been known to road hunt. Never owned Patagonia, black diamond, or north face.

Mike Lee called me a rich, east coast, liberal wanting to use the west as my personal playground. And it was up to the peasant class like himself to fight that.

Kinda seems he drew his line in the sand, sure be nice if guys spent 5 minutes reading what's actually going on, instead of being part of some dem/repub war over who gets the money on the back end.

Ya, I know, I'm tristate . I guess you roasted me


From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
You?re right, I need to apologize to tristate because you make him look like a reasonable dude.

You?ve painted a picture of me, and your semi-unintelligible rants towards me show you are just plain ignorant. I told myself I didn't need to justify anything to you, but just so you can never say I didn't tell you, here it goes.

-I'm not ?super conservative.? Many in Utah particularly would call me moderate. I do lean conservative on most issues, but a tea party conservative I am not. And definitely not ?super conservative.? Strike one.

-I'm not anti-fed. In fact, not even close. I'm absolutely 100% in favor of public lands in Utah staying with their current ownership structure. I don't want state (or private) control. I have my beefs with how the federal government is currently functioning (or not functioning, for that matter), but if anyone is not concerned with that right now, they have their head buried in the sand. Strike two.

-I dislike neither the Subaru nor granola crowd. I have no issue with them or how they do things, so long as they afford me the same respect. Strike three.

-I was not a fan of Mike Lee when he burst on the scene and unseated Bob Bennett, and I'm no more of a fan of his today. I believe he does NOT represent Utah values and has been a major cause of division not only in our country, but among the conservative movement. Strike four. (Never been a baseball fan, how many of these do you get before you no longer get to be at the plate?)

-I could not care less about what letter a politician has next to their name. I've voted for all of the above in each of the the last three elections: R, D, I. Can?t bring myself to go Libertarian. Those folks are whackos. Strike 5.

None of the above matters one bit. It doesn't change anything in the discussion. But next time you go on one of your nonsensical rants about me, you at least can't use the excuse that you weren't educated about the topic, and you're just choosing to be ignorant.

The funny thing is the only thing I've ever said is Patagonia is not a friend to hunters and has done things to purposefully take tags away from hunters. I can't think of anything more anti-hunting than preventing hunters from hunting with no biological reason for doing so. These are facts. Objective, verifiable information. It isn't even up for debate. Patagonia is not a friend to hunters.

But just go tell me how much I love Mike Lee because of the R. It will make you feel better, so knock yourself out. You and I have nothing left to discuss. Happy to split hairs with Grizz further, because he at least tries to act like he cares about having an educated discussion.
 
Hunting, fishing and outdoor activities comprise the bulk of my spare time. I live for it. On the other hand, when it comes to political alignment and voting, the single issue of public land policy is WAY down the list of priorities. There are far more important issues IMO. Taxes, trade policy, judicial appointments, social ideology, etc all come first. I'll go with the best available every time, and it will never be a liberal/progressive/socialist candidate.
 
Vanilla, somebody in a previous thread enlightened me (maybe it was you?) to Patagonia's position regarding bison hunting in Wyoming in 2005. Has there been further discussion towards that end from Patagonia?

I ask because I was looking for information to forward to BHA regarding my concerns about Patagonia but can't find anything more recent to back up the claim that they are anti-hunter. There appears to be some comments regarding grizzly hunting but I'm guessing they would disagree with your statement that there was "no biological reason" (your post 36) to oppose grizzly hunting. I'll leave room for somebody to theoretically be pro-hunter but still not want grizzlies hunted in the GYE, though I disagree with that assertion.

I agree with your concerns about Patagonia refunding bison tags in 2005, which they said was because the hunts were "not fair chase hunts or ethical. It's not a real hunt in the true sense of the word."

I found a statement from 2010 where Patagonia said, "Patagonia does not have a position on hunting. Our employees and customers run the gamut from hunters to vegans. Our owners have not found it necessary to take a stance on hunting for the company.

"We do not, nor have we ever, given support to anti-hunting organizations. Our support is given to grassroots enviro activists. We HAVE supported anti-whaling groups and anti-wolf-hunting groups in the past. At the end of the day, we are neutral on hunting and if people have a problem with this ? we're totally okay with it. Not everyone has to agree with our ethics and ethos."


Does that statement make them anti-hunter or just non-hunter? I guess that's for each reader to decide.

To prevent any confusion and mislabeling regarding my comments... I certainly support grizzly hunting in the Lower 48 and British Columbia, but if somebody else was hunter-friendly but felt it wasn't time to hunt grizzlies I wouldn't label them an "idiot, anti-hunter" it would just be that we disagree on grizzly management at this time.

Again, I'm not disagreeing with your assertion regarding Patagonia in 2005. I'm merely looking for all the information I can gather to provide BHA regarding Patagonia if they truly are "wolves in sheep's clothing" as you stated above, as I haven't been able to find much from preliminary internet searches. Give me some good, recent, anti-hunting text from Patagonia and I will contact the BHA Leadership about your (and my) concerns.

Grizzly

-----------------------------------------
"This is a classic case of a handful of greedy fly fishermen getting too greedy." -Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as told to KUTV

"It's time to revisit the widely accepted principle in the United States and Canada that game is a public resource."
-Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as quoted in Anchorage Daily News
 
I'm much less concerned about their public statements as I am about their public actions.

I'm not trying to convince BHA to separate from Patagonia. I'm not trying to convince you to share my disdain for Patagonia. What brought this up was a simple question: I wonder if Patagonia is paying the cost of tags in Utah for non-hunters to apply and draw like they have in other areas? This would be an interesting thing to know, but I doubt there is anyway for any of us to ever find that out.

Patagonia can say they have not taken a stance as a company on hunting, but when you give money specifically to prevent people from hunting, isn't that a statement made loud enough? Again, this isn't a "connect the dots down the line" type of situation where Company X gave money to Non-Profit Y who donated time to Cause Z that is anti-hunting. Patagonia paid money to keep tags out of the hands of hunters. That was the specific intent of the company by offering the money. Keeping tags out of the hands of hunters was the specific purpose of the money. Actions (and money) speak louder than words.

Even with that said, have they ever came out and apologized or repudiated their previous actions on this topic? I'd be interested if you can find anything on that, and would take a look at it with an open mind if you have anything. Candidly, I don't pay too much attention to them anymore, so maybe I missed something?
 
Vanilla. Have you tried asking them? They are pretty upfront on the grizzly hunting.

I never said you were those things I said I was.Read slower.

The entire bison issue in Montana is a joke. I've never heard, and if I'm wrong show me, does Patagonia do the same on bison hunts in the Henry's?

I don't recall anyone asking you to wear patagonia, but to simply realize we are the minority and we may need alliances with non traditional groups. Every dollar Patagonia spends on our subjects is one more we have for others. Thats good for hunters.

There are no grey areas. The Mike Lee's of the world drew that line. Good folks need to get past the bumper stickers and see what's going on.

If that hurts your feelings, too damn bad

From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
>Hunting, fishing and outdoor activities comprise
>the bulk of my spare
>time. I live for it.
>On the other hand, when
>it comes to political alignment
>and voting, the single issue
>of public land policy is
>WAY down the list of
>priorities. There are far more
>important issues IMO. Taxes, trade
>policy, judicial appointments, social ideology,
>etc all come first. I'll
>go with the best available
>every time, and it will
>never be a liberal/progressive/socialist candidate.
>

I get your position. I would only point out the same guy working so hard to take your land via 3 bills, has issued NONE on any of your priorities. I believe because he takes your vote for granted regardless. So much so he can blatantly do what he's doing, with zero fear of pushback, as long as he grandstands every few months and gets on Fox talking big.

Currently he is part of a group pushing back against Trumps efforts on trade and taxes.

Funny how these subjects Mike Lee ran on as part of the "tea party" wave, yet now its securing public land for private companies and individuals. Guess taxes, abortion, guns, trade, supreme court(Lee was anti Trumper meaning no gorsech or Cavanaugh), are all sewed up?


From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
What brought this up
>was a simple question: I
>wonder if Patagonia is paying
>the cost of tags in
>Utah for non-hunters to apply
>and draw like they have
>in other areas?

Do you have absolutely a shred of evidence to back up that question, or was it merely an attempt to poison the well?

What would be the purpose of a secret effort that nobody knows about and had somehow avoided ever being discussed in the media, social or otherwise? What a horrible secret plan that would be.

I figured you could back up your "idiot, anti-hunter" claim. I have given every opportunity for you to provide some relevant information to back up your claim. It appears you're going to hang your hat on a quote from the Buffalo Field Campaign regarding a single specific instance over a decade ago and ignore all newer information about what could easily be described as a corporation reaching across ideological boundaries to attain a greater good.

Do you have any information from the last decade to bolster your claim? If so, I'm listening. If not, your "question" is baseless.

And to be fair since I asked for recent evidence of Patagonia not being anti-hunter...

First Lite CEO and Patagonia CEO together in Boise... https://www.firstlite.com/campfire/tag/yvon-chouinard/

Patagonia CEO receiving an award at SHOT Show...
https://www.outdoorlife.com/photos/gallery/hunting/2010/01/and-winner?dom=odl&loc=header&lnk=login

Patagonia CEO at Backcountry Hunters & Anglers this spring...
https://gearjunkie.com/yvon-chouinard-patagonia-hunters-anglers

I guess you would consider these groups as conspiring with the enemy?

Grizzly

-----------------------------------------
"This is a classic case of a handful of greedy fly fishermen getting too greedy." -Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as told to KUTV

"It's time to revisit the widely accepted principle in the United States and Canada that game is a public resource."
-Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as quoted in Anchorage Daily News
 
Grizz, I'm pretty sure it was you that posted the quotes that back up my ?idiot, anti-hunter? claim. If you're going to completely disregard your own evidence just because it doesn't fit the narrative that makes you comfortable, what could I possibly show you that would make you change your mind? Again, that is not something I'm trying to do.

The evidence to backup my claim is out there. You?ve seen it. You can accept it, and just understand why some hunters do not like and are not comfortable with a company like Patagonia. Or, you can let your support of BHA blind you so badly that you defend anything and everything that you think is even tangentially connected to them. Either way, I really won't lose sleep over it. I'm not trying to convince you of anything.
 
Patagonia has a donation program with Utah Stream Access Coalition. (https://www.affta.org/2013/02/01/affta-and-usac-team-up-to-defend-stream-access/)

Would you support a similar program with Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation or BHA?

What about non-monetary support such as donated goods or media outreach coinciding with BHA or RMEF?

Grizzly

-----------------------------------------
"This is a classic case of a handful of greedy fly fishermen getting too greedy." -Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as told to KUTV

"It's time to revisit the widely accepted principle in the United States and Canada that game is a public resource."
-Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as quoted in Anchorage Daily News
 
Patagonia deserves a hat tip for their support on stream access in Utah. I am aware of their historical donations to USAC in the past. I checked with a contact, and they are still supporting with donations, etc. I will give them credit on that.

I honestly don't understand what you're asking me about RMEF and BHA with this program, however. Can you clarify what you mean?
 
I'm wondering if you support Patagonia joining up with USAC for stream access (and USAC accepting their donations), do you also give Patagonia a "hat tip" for their donations to BHA and/or other hunting organizations?

Grizzly

-----------------------------------------
"This is a classic case of a handful of greedy fly fishermen getting too greedy." -Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as told to KUTV

"It's time to revisit the widely accepted principle in the United States and Canada that game is a public resource."
-Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as quoted in Anchorage Daily News
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-27-18 AT 08:11PM (MST)[p]"So many times in the past we've seen groups divide and take sides on issues where we should be working together. How many hunters still think the folks at Patagonia are a bunch of tree huggers? We need to get past these notions and unite around the resources we care about. The Teddy Roosevelt Conservation Partnership has always been able to reach out and partner with a wide array of organizations. Patagonia looks forward to working with the TRCP to continue to bring these walls down."

http://www.trcp.org/2011/10/14/bill-klyn/

And if you're wondering who TRCP is... they include B&C, P&Y, MDF, DU, WSF, etc...

http://www.trcp.org/partners/

Grizzly

-----------------------------------------
"This is a classic case of a handful of greedy fly fishermen getting too greedy." -Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as told to KUTV

"It's time to revisit the widely accepted principle in the United States and Canada that game is a public resource."
-Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as quoted in Anchorage Daily News
 
I am not as bullish on BHA as you are. But sure, if that will make you feel better, I'll tip my hat to them for that.

Are you saying they do the same thing for RMEF? Or was that a hypothetical?
 
Grizz you still have not acknowledged the statement that started this whole thread it was based on flat out lies.
The mining claims that Yvon stated have been stopped by Secretary Zinke but yet he implied it was being allowed by the Trump administration.

I will stand behind Senator Lee the Antiquietes Act does need to be repelled it is a mockery of the way the Federal government uses it as a weapon against private land owners.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-28-18 AT 08:32AM (MST)[p]>Grizz you still have not acknowledged
>the statement that started this
>whole thread it was based
>on flat out lies.
>The mining claims that Yvon stated
>have been stopped by Secretary
>Zinke but yet he implied
>it was being allowed by
>the Trump administration.
>
>I will stand behind Senator Lee
>the Antiquietes Act does need
>to be repelled it is
>a mockery of the way
>the Federal government uses it
>as a weapon against private
>land owners.

Notdon,

I agree with you. I felt like this time Obama smacked Utah for its conservatism, and Nevada for Bundy. I also would hate to see Bernie, or Liz Warren with that power. BUT, I'm not sure how to check that power. In today's political climate, land won't get protected. Dems and repubs will simply yell at each other, and do nothing.
I also support motorized and grazing, which along with hunting could easily be stomped out by a Warren or Sanders type.

But, the repubs especially in Utah, have made it part of their platform to unload public land, so I have zero trust in them.

I feel like perhaps the only option would be limits in size, or perhaps limits in the number any President can make?

On the headwaters, BHA did a ton of calls to action. I've never been there, but I contacted my senators, and Bishop in protest. My hope would be sportsmen would take a united front on land/access issues. I feel like BHA is making that attempt, thus the Patagonia issue. We can argue tag numbers, seasons, etc amongst ourselves, but a united front on land is the only way I see to fight back the very connected, very deep pocketed interests that desire to acquire 640 million acres. Bitching about Patagonia, or Yvon or whoever that is helping, only lets the Lee of the world further fracture us, making their plan easier.

From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
What's in it for Patagonia to join in with us?

Those same anti hunting members or customers protesting grizzly or buffalo, can't be excited about joining in with a group that includes dudes who kill buffalo, grizzly, wolf. With the advancement in gear with Sitka, First Lite, EXO, Kifaru, etc, few if any hunters are Patagonia customers.

So what's in it for Yvon to do this?

Second, if Yvon and Patagonia jump in with us, doesn't that give cover to smaller companies and groups to follow along?

From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom