Outdoor Retailer-SLC-Patagonia

[rowdyhillrambler]

Outdoor Retailer is basically Interbike for the outdoor industry. It has been in Salt Lake City for 20 years, and this will probably be the last.

Patagonia and Black Diamond, a Utah based company, have said they will not attend. The new administration has opened up public land to the highest bidder. Specifically here, the Bears Ears National Monument. So, I personally love a company that is willing to vote with their wallet, or lack there of. Hit 'em where it counts, the pocket book.

I will miss SLC, but not that much.


Pretty soon it's gonna be, "Texaco presents The Great Smoky Mountains, DBA Georgia Pacific." Bunch a turds....

[AngryScientist]

i have admittedly only scratched the surface of their business model and dealings, but everything i have read about Patagonia recently has made me a real believer in the company.

What really impressed me was their donation of $$ from black friday sales. they projected they would raise about $2mil and actually raised $10M. True to their word they ponied up the cash to numerous environmental efforts. A lesser dedicated company would have donated the projected $2M and pocketed the profits.

I hesitate to turn this into a political discussion, but i am deeply, deeply concerned with the repercussions this administration will have on this great country. There are too many drilling, strip-mining, polluting companies who are licking their chops with what was once off limits.

there are dozens of other legitimate concerns.

for my small part i will also continue to vote with my $$ and support good companies like Pata.

[SteveP]

They are voting w their dollars. Good for them taking a stand.

I thk we will need a lot of these actions going forward.

[dashDustin]

friend just took a position at Patagonia. that is a hell of a company. what a model for others to look up to.

[caleb]

The New Yorker ran a really interesting profile of Yvon Chouinard last fall: Patagonia’s Philosopher-King - The New Yorker I found the description of his kids fascinating.

I have never heard anyone who has personally worked with Chouinard say he's anything but 100% genuine in his advocacy for environmental causes. A company where the marketing and the reality aren't much different. I wish they made more stuff in the US, but I continue to swaddle myself in it anyway. They might not be wrong that a factory in Vietnam that you really have your eye on is better than a subcontractor in South Carolina operating out of sight and out of mind.

[echelon_john]

I can count on one hand the number of brands that
1) Have delivered quality with every purchase I've EVER made or made it right by easy return/exchange
2) Consistently wear well, wash well, look great
3) Represent my political views nearly 100% in sync

Patagonia is at the top of the list. Yes, it's expensive, but "Buy it one, buy it right" is easy with them. I hope lots of folks and companies vote with their dollars; it's perhaps more meaningful than voting with one's vote!!!

[rowdyhillrambler]

The New Yorker ran a really interesting profile of Yvon Chouinard last fall: Patagonia’s Philosopher-King - The New Yorker I found the description of his kids fascinating.

I have never heard anyone who has personally worked with Chouinard say he's anything but 100% genuine in his advocacy for environmental causes. A company where the marketing and the reality aren't much different. I wish they made more stuff in the US, but I continue to swaddle myself in it anyway. They might not be wrong that a factory in Vietnam that you really have your eye on is better than a subcontractor in South Carolina operating out of sight and out of mind.

Yvon is in fact the real deal, as you say. In 1997 we were arrested in NC for an anti-chip milla action we did. The company not only offered to help with bail/court cost, but also sent us boxes of clothing to raffle or sell to help out. I still have a jacket i wear a lot, and think of that day. I mean boxes of clothing...

[vertical_doug]

i have admittedly only scratched the surface of their business model and dealings, but everything i have read about Patagonia recently has made me a real believer in the company.

What really impressed me was their donation of $$ from black friday sales. they projected they would raise about $2mil and actually raised $10M. True to their word they ponied up the cash to numerous environmental efforts. A lesser dedicated company would have donated the projected $2M and pocketed the profits.

I hesitate to turn this into a political discussion, but i am deeply, deeply concerned with the repercussions this administration will have on this great country. There are too many drilling, strip-mining, polluting companies who are licking their chops with what was once off limits.

there are dozens of other legitimate concerns.

for my small part i will also continue to vote with my $$ and support good companies like Pata.

Your banker will be a pay-day lender and your landlord a slumlord. Which part of this equation don't you get?
And last but not least, children are not students, but profit centers.

[theflashunc]

Seems like simple math, no? Why hold the show in a place that doesn't support the outdoors and public access to them?

[spopepro]

It was funny to watch someone post onto Reddit that they were surprised to hear that Texas offered bounties for hunting feral hogs, only to have everyone in the thread remark that there was almost no where to actually hunt them without owning a ton of private land, or paying someone a bunch of money to hunt on their land.

This is the danger of "my team" based politics.

Yesterday (yesterday!) the House of Representatives decided that they don't want to hear your voice, nor the voices of any advocacy groups, when deciding what to do with BLM land. It's worth remembering, BLM land is some of the last public lands that allow sport shooting, and have significant portions for public hunting. You would think this would be one issue that environmentalists, conservationists, shooters, anglers, climbers, off road vehicle riders, and all who love the outdoors for preservation and use could get behind. Unfortunately, it seems like some of these groups are currently more interested in "liberal tears" than their own self-interest. It's stuff like this that makes me worry deeply about our future ability to function peacefully.

But if BD and Patagonia can get along... maybe there's a chance for all of us. Or maybe it's just a case of desperate times calling for desperate measures.



(p.s. that last part was a joke. kinda. it's true though that BD and Patagonia don't really get along at all since they went opposite directions after the bankruptcy, employee buyout and IPO)

[choke]

The new administration has opened up public land to the highest bidder. Specifically here, the Bears Ears National Monument.

I don't want to get political either, but let's at least point the blame where it belongs...at the Utah State Govt, not the Feds. Link here.

This year, Patagonia is pulling out of OR. In a statement today, the company said it would withdraw from the Outdoor Retailer show in response to a move made last week by Utah Gov. Gary Herbert.

Herbert signed a resolution last Friday urging the Trump administration to rescind the Bears Ears National Monument. (See our article on Bears Ear.)

Patagonia stated the move made it “clear that [Herbert] and other Utah elected officials do not support public lands conservation.”

As for Patagonia clothing, I've owned a few pieces but I wasn't all that impressed with them. I didn't find the quality to be any better than Marmot or Mtn Hardwear though the price was certainly higher and I thought it was below that of Arc'terx.

[bking]

I believe there are at least two sides to this story, maybe more. I've spent a lot of time in the mountains and canyons of Utah, much more than Mr Chouinard I'd bet, and I know the people of that state are both proud of and love the national forests and park lands of their state. But 2/3 of Utah is already designated parks, national forests or other, all "owned" and controlled by Washington (Fed Gov't owns 66.5% of the state). It could be they think that's enough already. There are only a handful of states that have set aside more than 10% of their land for public use--many it's less than 3% (Connecticut is stingiest as I recall, less than 1%). There's a lot more to this than simply saying people in Utah are "denigrating our public lands".
I have nothing but respect for the man and his company, been buying his stuff since the '70's, but maybe he should rent out his nice home in Ventura and move to Escalante for a couple years. Maybe then he wouldn't be so quick to take his ball and go home. We all do that too much now a days.

By the way, the state with the largest Federally controlled land holding, mine, Nevada at over 80% (Utah is second). Frankly, there's a lot of it that they can just keep.

[spopepro]

I believe there are at least two sides to this story, maybe more. I've spent a lot of time in the mountains and canyons of Utah, much more than Mr Chouinard I'd bet,

Wow. Um, I think you might be confused who exactly Mr. Chouinard is? Although It's possible that I don't know you and you have an incredible number of first ascents, route finding, and expeditions in your past.

and I know the people of that state are both proud of and love the national forests and park lands of their state. But 2/3 of Utah is already designated parks, national forests or other, all "owned" and controlled by Washington (Fed Gov't owns 66.5% of the state). It could be they think that's enough already. There are only a handful of states that have set aside more than 10% of their land for public use--many it's less than 3% (Connecticut is stingiest as I recall, less than 1%). There's a lot more to this than simply saying people in Utah are "denigrating our public lands".
I have nothing but respect for the man and his company, been buying his stuff since the '70's, but maybe he should rent out his nice home in Ventura and move to Escalante for a couple years. Maybe then he wouldn't be so quick to take his ball and go home. We all do that too much now a days.

By the way, the state with the largest Federally controlled land holding, mine, Nevada at over 80% (Utah is second). Frankly, there's a lot of it that they can just keep.

Here's a great article that shows what you're talking about, and also why it's still a concern: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/06/u...west.html?_r=0

The money quote:

Over time, it transferred land to state governments and individuals, largely through homesteading and land grants, which allowed farmers to procure parcels of land for agricultural use. ... That strategy worked well in the Midwest, where very little land remains in federal hands.

The point is that there are many who want to get the program going again that resulted in most of the land in the midwest being private. Make it "valueless", transfer to the states, states can "dispose" of the land to private interests. Can't do it with a national park or national monument, so you have to get those un-designated. This isn't just about one park--it's about all the land in the west not in private hands.

[caleb]

There are only a handful of states that have set aside more than 10% of their land for public use--many it's less than 3% (Connecticut is stingiest as I recall, less than 1%). There's a lot more to this than simply saying people in Utah are "denigrating our public lands".

Is more than 10% of Utah owned by the State of Utah for public use?

As far as I know, most Federal land in Utah has never been owned by Utah, and it was never in a position to set it aside for public use. As far as I know, it's always been owned by the American people.

This seems to be part of the conflict here. To some westerners, Federal land is somehow rightfully theirs because they live closer to it than others. To everyone else, it's all of ours.

[rowdyhillrambler]

"this land is your land, this land is our land'

The land belongs to us, the citizens of Earth, the plant and animals that inhabit it.. Its ours

[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.