Outdoor Retailer-SLC-Patagonia

[bcm119]

There really isn’t a robust argument for selling public lands. The people in favor of it are your average anti-government folks who only know they hate the government and don’t like being told how to behave on public lands. The government doesn’t exactly “own” the land, they simply manage it for the best outcomes considering competing interests. And the management plans are written by local agency employees who are familiar with local interests and consider public input, not Washington. When resource extraction is permitted on public land, the government only takes small administrative fees for permitting, and none of the profits. These points are always lost on the anti-government contingency. The only reason congress occasionally introduces bills to sell off land is to garner support from their district. Chaffetz recently had a reality check when it became apparent his district was not particularly in favor of it.

[Chris Chesebro]

Also, comparing a percentage of CT land owned vs. UT land owned is like comparing a blue whale and a carp.

[Greg Costello]

I don't see two real sides to this debate. The federal government is not increasing its holdings in Utah, the only change being discussed is management with some wanting more ecological protection and long term protection and others wanted more resource extraction for profit and consequent resource destruction. One style benefits all of the lands owners - we the people, the other benefits primarily the small few - the shareholders of the extraction companies and for a very finite period of time, the few people who are temporarily employed in the extraction efforts. The whole push by states for more "local control" through the transfer of federal lands to states is so that states can sell it off or lease it off to political supporters. It is that raw and straightforward, which is why every conservation group and virtually every hunter and angler group is so opposed to these efforts. As another poster said, those who live nearby often feel a sense of entitlement and greater right through proximity, casually forgetting that they have no greater right than any other citizen in the United States. And while Yvon doesn't live in Utah, Peter Metcalf does and has for many, many years. This isn't an outsider vs insider fight - I guarantee that 99% of the folks that are in the Salt Palace at the OR Show feel exactly the same on this public lands issue as Yvon and Peter, and that includes the tremendous number of those folks who live, work and play in Utah.

[fortyfour]

If I may add to the discussion. A good friend of mine summed up the end goal of what is being proposed in Utah regarding BLM lands and transfer of Public Lands back to Western States like Utah:

"Actions are being taken to transfer our public lands to western States, where there are no landscape-scale rules and frameworks for protecting land and managing for timber, grazing, wildlife, water protection, recreation, clean air, and many other values of these lands. The end goal of this transfer is to deregulate the environment and allow States to sell these lands to oil, gas, hardrock mining, logging, ranching, development, and other non-public, profit-oriented uses."

His full text with his permission is here.

It gives good historical perspective and why it's important to push back on what is being proposed. Patagonia, Black Diamond and many others are spearheading part of that pushback.

Personally, I can relate to this up here in NH. There's a lot of privately owned land in my area. A lot of it is in conservation easements with specific wording that allows for public use or a bunch of it is private land that the current owner is amenable to public access. A lot of that same land has trails on it I frequent on my mountain bike. A bunch of it was recently sold and the new owner said "No more public access" so large sections of trail networks were cut in half. This is a good reason to have public land otherwise, your access to "outside" gets more narrow and more narrow and more narrow.

So what happens when large parcels are returned to states and private companies purchase them for resource extraction? You're not going anywhere near that anymore and that's only part of the rub. Not everything should be open season to resource extraction nor should it be privately held by corporations especially when there are not robust protections in place at the state level. This is where the Federal Government steps in and sets aside large parcels with policies in place that are pro-envronment as the states are not reliable vehicles to do the right thing in many cases. It's short term gains instead of looking for long term resource replacements and using our technology and innovation to overcome tomorrows challenges we're facing today.

No matter what side of the political spectrum you're on, if you enjoy the outdoors, this should give you pause and concern.

[abbeyQ]

I wonder what kind of impact having a thousand sq/ft of prime show floor space devoted to the political message would have? I imagine both companies had already paid for their booth and it would be awesome to see them keep the space on the floor and use it in a way to send a message.

As a business owner I appreciate it when my 'peers' make decesions that have little to do with profits and everything to do with what they belive in.

[bking]

I wonder what kind of impact having a thousand sq/ft of prime show floor space devoted to the political message would have? I imagine both companies had already paid for their booth and it would be awesome to see them keep the space on the floor and use it in a way to send a message.

As a business owner I appreciate it when my 'peers' make decesions that have little to do with profits and everything to do with what they belive in.

Now I do like that as a response; much better than just pulling out. Make your case, influence people.

[Greg Costello]

I wonder what kind of impact having a thousand sq/ft of prime show floor space devoted to the political message would have? I imagine both companies had already paid for their booth and it would be awesome to see them keep the space on the floor and use it in a way to send a message.

As a business owner I appreciate it when my 'peers' make decesions that have little to do with profits and everything to do with what they belive in.

Both of these companies, and many others, usually host "happy hours" with presentations or fundraisers for conservation organizations. Not directly political re the public lands issues per se as they let the group highlight the work they choose. The Outdoor Retailers Alliance also hosts an annual breakfast for its members (typically the 1% for the planet crowd) and they have keynotes on particular issues (last year one was on the campaign to designate the Greater Grand Canyon National Monument) and there was a lot of support the past two years for the Bears Ears National Monument. In short a lot of these retailers do use their platform to advocate for conservation.