# "Time for outdoor retailers to leave Utah in disgust"



## #1DEER 1-I

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/4798906-155/op-ed-time-for-outdoor-retailers-to

Just thought I'd post this here. The outdoor industry is beginning to push back on Utah, the hunting and angling industry needs to start doing the same.


----------



## High Desert Elk

I suggest nobody buy any OTC General Bull (rifle or archery) tag this year. Plenty of other states to hunt and you have better quality and/or you can shoot more than a spike.


----------



## LostLouisianian

Ahhh snowflakes


----------



## Critter

You can also just totally boycott the state of Utah's draw system along with anything else that has to do with the outdoors. Need a boat? Go to Idaho or Colorado to buy it, but then where are you going to use it at if you are boycotting the Utah outdoors? 

Every outdoor and outdoor sporting goods dealer could move every brick and motar store that they have in Utah outside of it and make just as much money off of mail order and perhaps more. Fewer employees, no building to take care of, no property taxes to deal with. 

The only people that they are going to hurt are the people that buy items from their stores when they walk into them. Just think, no more running over to Cabela's to pick up that new rifle that you want. Need some fishing gear, pull up Bass Pro on the computer and see what you want then wait a week for it to get to your home. 

Some of these ideas that people come up with are about as dumb as they are.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

LostLouisianian said:


> Ahhh snowflakes


You're childish behavior surfaces again. It's really quite laughable. They want to further lower the GSL, transfer and sell public lands, sell public wildlife to the highest bidder, sell their DWR to a nonprofit, and try to lock you out of public waters. Yet there's still sportsmen such as yourself who apparently believe you aren't being screwed over by the politicians in this state and vote again and again to reinforce the screwing you're getting.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Critter said:


> You can also just totally boycott the state of Utah's draw system along with anything else that has to do with the outdoors. Need a boat? Go to Idaho or Colorado to buy it, but then where are you going to use it at if you are boycotting the Utah outdoors?
> 
> Every outdoor and outdoor sporting goods dealer could move every brick and motar store that they have in Utah outside of it and make just as much money off of mail order and perhaps more. Fewer employees, no building to take care of, no property taxes to deal with.
> 
> The only people that they are going to hurt are the people that buy items from their stores when they walk into them. Just think, no more running over to Cabela's to pick up that new rifle that you want. Need some fishing gear, pull up Bass Pro on the computer and see what you want then wait a week for it to get to your home.
> 
> Some of these ideas that people come up with are about as dumb as they are.


This is more about pulling 2 trade show that benefits Utah with $50 million in direct spending. Also, retail is on its slow way to death, I do 90% of my shopping online as it is already.


----------



## Catherder

FWIW, based on the responses on this thread, I'm not sure that anyone responding (even 1 eye) realizes that the op-ed piece is *only* talking about moving the Outdoor Retailers *Convention* and not a boycott of anything.

Also, loss of this large *Convention* would indeed represent a genuine hit to Salt lake's economy, so the action would not be dumb at all if the Outdoor Retailers as a group wanted to take a substantive stand against the policies the State of Utah is pursuing. It is an easy argument that this industry has a vested interest in keeping public lands public.

Carry on.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

I realized it Catheder I mentioned it in my last post. Thing is they could move to a state next door and take their economic impact with them and may even do better in a state like Colorado.


----------



## ridgetop

I won't be buying any more Black Diamond products!


----------



## LostLouisianian

ridgetop said:


> I won't be buying any more Black Diamond products!


Neither will I


----------



## LostLouisianian

#1DEER 1-I said:


> You're childish behavior surfaces again. It's really quite laughable. They want to further lower the GSL, transfer and sell public lands, sell public wildlife to the highest bidder, sell their DWR to a nonprofit, and try to lock you out of public waters. Yet there's still sportsmen such as yourself who apparently believe you aren't being screwed over by the politicians in this state and vote again and again to reinforce the screwing you're getting.


Hey here's an idea, quit whining about everything ok. Every time someone farts you come on here crying and whining that the world is coming to an end. I'll let you in on a secret. It is PUBLIC land which means it is equally owned by every legal citizen of the USA. Your OPINION carries no more weight than anyone else in regards to how THEY think the public lands should be administered.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

LostLouisianian said:


> Neither will I


Snowflake


----------



## LostLouisianian

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Snowflake


Not really, you see I don't mountain climb (it's ridiculously stupid) and I don't ski (I blew out a disk 27 years ago) and their clothing line is absolutely foolishly expensive and only yuppies, idiots and morons would buy those clothes at those prices. But other than that, well their CEO is a crybaby and someone who is of a different political persuasion from myself. I tend to support people and companies that are most closely aligned with my personal core values.:OX/:


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

LostLouisianian said:


> Not really, you see I don't mountain climb (it's ridiculously stupid) and I don't ski (I blew out a disk 27 years ago) and their clothing line is absolutely foolishly expensive and only yuppies, idiots and morons would buy those clothes at those prices. But other than that, well their CEO is a crybaby and someone who is of a different political persuasion from myself. I tend to support people and companies that are most closely aligned with my personal core values.:OX/:


Very good, and they'd rather support a state that is more aligned with their companies success and core values. There's nothing wrong with that. Sounds like you and him have a lot in common. If you can't see the comparison there, you're absolutely blind.


----------



## High Desert Elk

LostLouisianian said:


> Not really, you see I don't mountain climb (it's ridiculously stupid) and I don't ski (I blew out a disk 27 years ago) and their clothing line is absolutely foolishly expensive and only yuppies, idiots and morons would buy those clothes at those prices. But other than that, well their CEO is a crybaby and someone who is of a different political persuasion from myself. I tend to support people and companies that are most closely aligned with my personal core values.:OX/:


Gotta love Free Market Capitalism. Let your dollars do the voting.


----------



## middlefork

If you are going to boycott BD because of their statement you better get ready to boycott a bunch more. OR is an association and all members in the association would have a vote in moving to a different location.
OR has been bullying SL county and Utah for years for one thing or another. Not enough convention space, not enough rooms, not enough taxi's you get the picture.
The reason they are here is it is cheap and convenient. If somebody else makes a better offer they will be gone in a heartbeat.
I certainly don't see a problem with making their feelings known on the public lands fight. I'm pretty sure there are more granola crunchers recreating in Utah than hunters and fishermen.


----------



## BPturkeys

I know, lets just start hating all the other users of the outdoors, belittling their activities, calling them names, shutting them out of our discussions, playing holier than thou...sure who needs them, they're just a bunch of bark chewing, sprocket headed, rock climin, snow skiin sissies. Us hunters can fight(the elimination of public land) battle all by ourselves. The last thing we need is somebody that might have a little clout standin up against the local politicians(note I said the politicians, not the public that are users of the public land) that just want to steal, and sell the public lands. 
By all means, boycott BD, boycott anybody that you think might be leaning even just a little to the left, these no good commie bastages...who needs em...*amn, I just hate all those people that aren't just like me, people that want to ruin the land by skiin, rock climbin, bikin, drivin ATV's, bird watchin, fishin, horseback ridin, hikin...hate'em, hate'em, hate'em!


----------



## High Desert Elk

I thought the point above is there are more people who don't have the tie to public lands that hunters and fishers do that get their fix from all national recreational areas and private ski runs...

'Granola Cruncher' isn't derogatory any more than 'Hunter'.


----------



## PBH

High Desert Elk said:


> I suggest nobody buy any OTC General Bull (rifle or archery) tag this year. Plenty of other states to hunt and you have better quality and/or you can shoot more than a spike.


hmmmm.

Nope.

Rather, I'm going to encourage others to stop voting for the buffoons that continue to try to take away our public access!!


----------



## PBH

Critter said:


> ...Just think, no more running over to Cabela's to pick up that new rifle that you want. Need some fishing gear, pull up Bass Pro on the computer and see what you want then wait a week for it to get to your home.


Welcome to the reality that many of us in rural Utah live with!

you Wasatch Front folk are funny.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

PBH said:


> Welcome to the reality that many of us in rural Utah live with!
> 
> you Wasatch Front folk are funny.


Agreed, only about 1 in 20 items I buy for hunting is from a store and not online.


----------



## Critter

PBH said:


> Welcome to the reality that many of us in rural Utah live with!
> 
> you Wasatch Front folk are funny.


I have been living that reality for over 40 years now, so I know your pain.


----------



## High Desert Elk

PBH said:


> hmmmm.
> 
> Nope.
> 
> Rather, I'm going to encourage others to stop voting for the buffoons that continue to try to take away our public access!!


That was supposed to make as much sense as the war cry "boycott, boycott because you don't agree"...

About the dumbest thing that can be done in a public land use quandary like this is to not use it for hunting and fishing.


----------



## DallanC

PBH said:


> Welcome to the reality that many of us in rural Utah live with!


I used to live in a Rural area... now I live in a moderate sized city. The sad thing is I didn't move.

-DallanC


----------



## PBH

I can't remember the last time I tried on a pair of shoes prior to buying them.
Fishing tackle is a joke. Whoever manages the fishing departments for Walmart obviously lives in Mississippi. Or Alabama. Or somewhere that you catch catfish the size of a small volkswagon. CAL Ranch does an OK job. I rarely buy from ACE.

FWIW -- Cedar is getting a Sportsman's Warehouse! I just hope that they know what they are getting in to with their store manager. Obviously they forgot to check references and criminal background....:shock:

Oh well. I might be able to try on a pair of boots before I buy them!


----------



## LostLouisianian

PBH said:


> I can't remember the last time I tried on a pair of shoes prior to buying them.
> Fishing tackle is a joke. Whoever manages the fishing departments for Walmart obviously lives in Mississippi. Or Alabama. Or somewhere that you catch catfish the size of a small volkswagon. CAL Ranch does an OK job. I rarely buy from ACE.
> 
> FWIW -- Cedar is getting a Sportsman's Warehouse! I just hope that they know what they are getting in to with their store manager. Obviously they forgot to check references and criminal background....:shock:
> 
> Oh well. I might be able to try on a pair of boots before I buy them!


What's wrong with catfish the size of a small volkswagen?


----------



## High Desert Elk

UT is Volkswagen Wagon size challenged when it comes to catfish. On second thought, maybe not. Powell has some big cats I'm sure...


----------



## Critter

PBH said:


> FWIW -- Cedar is getting a Sportsman's Warehouse! I just hope that they know what they are getting in to with their store manager. Obviously they forgot to check references and criminal background....:shock:
> 
> Oh well. I might be able to try on a pair of boots before I buy them!


For trout Sportsman's usually have a very small area dedicated to the trout fisherman and a whole lot dedicated to the large bass fisherman in every store that I have been in from Midvale to Tucson and 3 of them in Colorado.

But at least you are getting on. The closest one to me is 120 miles either east or west.


----------



## middlefork

For those who wish to boycott here is a list of Exhibitors.
Read it very carefully you don't want to miss anyone.
I'm pretty sure you might have to get a list of suppliers from Cabelas, Sportsmans or any other outlet to make sure you don't screw up and support one of them.
http://s15.a2zinc.net/clients/emeraldexpo/orwm2017/Public/exhibitors.aspx?ID=5832&AEID=1234


----------



## hondodawg

PBH said:


> I can't remember the last time I tried on a pair of shoes prior to buying them.
> Fishing tackle is a joke. Whoever manages the fishing departments for Walmart obviously lives in Mississippi. Or Alabama. Or somewhere that you catch catfish the size of a small volkswagon. CAL Ranch does an OK job. I rarely buy from ACE.
> 
> FWIW -- Cedar is getting a Sportsman's Warehouse! I just hope that they know what they are getting in to with their store manager. Obviously they forgot to check references and criminal background....:shock:
> 
> Oh well. I might be able to try on a pair of boots before I buy them!


Is it a local manager? I went to SUU years ago before CaL came to town

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Catherder

PBH said:


> FWIW -- Cedar is getting a Sportsman's Warehouse! I just hope that they know what they are getting in to with their store manager. Obviously they forgot to check references and criminal background....:shock:
> 
> Oh well. I might be able to try on a pair of boots before I buy them!


Congrats for getting an SW. I kind of like them. It may help that it is on the way home from the office. As for the new manager, it isn't UWN's most famous poacher is it?

RE"For trout Sportsman's usually have a very small area dedicated to the trout fisherman and a whole lot dedicated to the large bass fisherman in every store that I have been in from Midvale to Tucson and 3 of them in Colorado. "

Interesting, as both a finesse basser and a trout enthusiast, I occasionally grumble that they are too frequently out of my favorite bassin plastics and am also griping about weak selections in the fly fishing section. I guess it depends on perspective and immediate needs.


----------



## OriginalOscar

LostLouisianian said:


> Hey here's an idea, quit whining about everything ok. Every time someone farts you come on here crying and whining that the world is coming to an end. I'll let you in on a secret. It is PUBLIC land which means it is equally owned by every legal citizen of the USA. Your OPINION carries no more weight than anyone else in regards to how THEY think the public lands should be administered.


I nominate for best post of the year!

OR isn't going anywhere. Salt Lake - major hub airport, 8 minutes to downtown including light rail, 7000 hotels rooms downtown, huge convention center, good costs due to Utah pro business policies, vibrant modern downtown, 30 minutes downtown to the slopes for field day. Nobody in North America has that amazing combination. 80% of attendees surveyed last year said stay in Salt Lake.

This guy should step up and relocate Black Diamond to San Juan County. I hear the Bears Ears Monument has an excellent climbing area. Put the jobs in wild country.


----------



## High Desert Elk

OriginalOscar said:


> ...This guy should step up and relocate Black Diamond to San Juan County. I hear the Bears Ears Monument has an excellent climbing area. Put the jobs in wild country.


Naw, just a publicity stunt. Nothing to see here folks, move along.


----------



## 2full

I was quite surprised when I heard who Sportsman picked for a manager as well. 
Everyone knows of his past issues........


----------



## utskidad

Black Diamond are typical Lefties. Straight out of the Lefty playbook -- demonize half the country and play economic hardball. Since Roe v. Wade, the Left has abandoned any effort to actually convince anyone of anything using fact and reason. They operate like a high school prom committee using snark and threats of social ostracism. I don't care what Black Diamond does. I cannot afford their goods. $500 for a shell at discounted price at STP. I have no idea who buys this stuff, but I don't know anyone who uses or wears it. Utah is now overrun with tourists. We now have 2 hours a day of bumper to bumper traffic in Summit County for 4 months a year. The SLC roads are overrun at rush hour. It's time to decide what Utah wants for Utah.


----------



## PBH

utskidad said:


> Black Diamond are typical Lefties. Straight out of the Lefty playbook -- demonize half the country and play economic hardball. Since Roe v. Wade, the Left has abandoned any effort to actually convince anyone of anything using fact and reason. They operate like a high school prom committee using snark and threats of social ostracism. I don't care what Black Diamond does. I cannot afford their goods. $500 for a shell at discounted price at STP. I have no idea who buys this stuff, but I don't know anyone who uses or wears it. Utah is now overrun with tourists. We now have 2 hours a day of bumper to bumper traffic in Summit County for 4 months a year. The SLC roads are overrun at rush hour. It's time to decide what Utah wants for Utah.


Like I said, you Wasatch Front (or Back) folk are a funny lot.

Whether BD is lefty or righty, expensive or cheap, prom committee member or prom attendee, tourist or shop owner doesn't matter. The good thing that they have done is opened up a few more people's eyes to what our state leaders continue to do with our public lands. Our leaders continue to want to pull public land out from under the public. That is evident to anyone willing to open their eyes. Unfortunately, Utah has too many ostriches hiding with their heads in the sand. Rubber stamp the red ticket because it's red, and that's what your dad, and his dad did.


----------



## PBH

hondodawg said:


> Is it a local manager? I went to SUU years ago before CaL came to town


Local to southern Utah.

CAL is a nice store. So is IFA Country Store.



Catherder said:


> As for the new manager, it isn't UWN's most famous poacher is it?


No. But nearly that brass.

I'm not too concerned about whether or not Sportsman's has the best trout selection or the best bass selection. Just having a selection will be nice!!

The truth is, it will be nice to have a store. Being able to look at 2 (or more) pairs of wading boots will be nice. Putting your foot into them will be great. Whether you buy either or not.

I imagine I'll still do a lot of purchasing over the internet.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Patagonia follows suite:
http://www.patagonia.com/blog/2017/...ves-utah-does-utah-love-the-outdoor-industry/

I don't give two ****s whether they are on the left or right. I don't care if I fully agree with them on Bears Ears. For all you cry baby conservatives on here who criticize a company for using the open market to move out of an area that is hostile to them, I hope you can find some fiber in your being to see your hypocrisy. It is about time the environmentalists and other outdoor companies shouldered a little load and raised their voice on these issues and said hell no to this ridiculously stupid, selfish, short sighted, non-conservative idea to transfer and sell federal lands. I don't have to agree with someone on every issue or be on their side of the political isle (like some here) to support them on a few things they do. I absolutely support the outdoor industry and companies telling Utahs legislature it's time to end this talk. To me they need to aim this more at the transfer and sale than they do the Bears Ears monument but at least they are flexing their muscles. Get off your partisan politics and grow up. These "leftists" or "hippies" outnumber us 10 to 1, it's time to work together in this country rather than farther apart.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

utskidad said:


> Black Diamond are typical Lefties. Straight out of the Lefty playbook -- demonize half the country and play economic hardball. Since Roe v. Wade, the Left has abandoned any effort to actually convince anyone of anything using fact and reason. They operate like a high school prom committee using snark and threats of social ostracism. I don't care what Black Diamond does. I cannot afford their goods. $500 for a shell at discounted price at STP. I have no idea who buys this stuff, but I don't know anyone who uses or wears it. Utah is now overrun with tourists. We now have 2 hours a day of bumper to bumper traffic in Summit County for 4 months a year. The SLC roads are overrun at rush hour. It's time to decide what Utah wants for Utah.


Nope, that's what you call the free market, and a company being able to say what it wants and takes its business elsewhere. This is one of the most blind, partisan posts on this thread yet. When the "left" actually puts it in their party platform to get rid of hunting I'll fight them every step of the way. Right now the party I currently belong to has it in their platform to get rid of public lands, you better believe I'll do what I can to push back at them especially since I'm one of the people they are supposed to be representing.


----------



## Dunkem

Hey 1-I careful on your loose translation of "Hippies". I am an old hippie and there is a difference!! :hippie:eace:


----------



## wyogoob




----------



## johnnycake

It is funny, I have been reading this thread and refraining from commenting. But I see a lot of outcry and hullabaloo because a "non hunting focused" outdoor company uses its clout to try to influence politics on an issue that many sportsmen agree is a serious issue---and agree with the position advocated even! I think the legal hurdles and actual economics of the issue make it a moot point to get riled up about. I don't see it actually happening, and even if it did I don't think the state could or would find buyers for enough of the land to make a significant impact on our land access for hunting/recreating. But on the side of caution I would prefer the feds and their problems to the corruption of Utah politics. But up here in AK...I think I'd prefer the state have the lands as the Feds tend to let white guilt run rampant and screw over as best they can nonnative access and use of land/wildlife. If Utah didn't have the murky history of the past 30 years with wildlife issues I might have a different opinion for Utah. At the same time, I do believe that resource development is a crucial and necessary part of federal and state land ownership. But like Theodore Roosevelt, I think it needs to be done in a way to ensure both the benefits of the resource and the beauty of open spaces are maintained for future generations. Striking that balance is something that cannot be found in either major political party anymore, and hasn't been found for a long time. I for one am skeptical that either the jackasses or pachyderms can achieve it anymore with all the baggage they have and I dream of the day that we get another Bull Moose to run the country. Some of Trump's appointments give me sparks of hope (Zinke, Tillerson, Mnuchin) but too many of his positions leave me in doubt. Artificial intelligence could hopefully reach a point that we can recreate TR, right? Then we just have to make sure that we craft that robot in a way some uppity lawyer can succeed in arguing its eligible to run for POTUS, and elect TR-bot 3000 as POTUS. Then I'll be happy. 

I personally find that Black Diamond makes some very high quality products, but lucky for me my sister-in-law and her husband are both uppity ups in the company (she actually oversees and develops the clothing line) so I haven't had to pay for the items we enjoy! I've met Peter Metcalf on a number of occasions and have found that he is a pretty well aligned with hunting and fishing interests that are held by most sportsmen. We want access, now and in the future. Good science to dictate management plans (land use and wildlife both) and not politics. There are a number of issues we don't agree on, but in the end I think our differences are fewer than our similarities on the "multiple use, sustained yield" management of public lands.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

johnnycake said:


> It is funny, I have been reading this thread and refraining from commenting. But I see a lot of outcry and hullabaloo because a "non hunting focused" outdoor company uses its clout to try to influence politics on an issue that many sportsmen agree is a serious issue---and agree with the position advocated even! I think the legal hurdles and actual economics of the issue make it a moot point to get riled up about. I don't see it actually happening, and even if it did I don't think the state could or would find buyers for enough of the land to make a significant impact on our land access for hunting/recreating. But on the side of caution I would prefer the feds and their problems to the corruption of Utah politics. But up here in AK...I think I'd prefer the state have the lands as the Feds tend to let white guilt run rampant and screw over as best they can nonnative access and use of land/wildlife. If Utah didn't have the murky history of the past 30 years with wildlife issues I might have a different opinion for Utah. At the same time, I do believe that resource development is a crucial and necessary part of federal and state land ownership. But like Theodore Roosevelt, I think it needs to be done in a way to ensure both the benefits of the resource and the beauty of open spaces are maintained for future generations. Striking that balance is something that cannot be found in either major political party anymore, and hasn't been found for a long time. I for one am skeptical that either the jackasses or pachyderms can achieve it anymore with all the baggage they have and I dream of the day that we get another Bull Moose to run the country. Some of Trump's appointments give me sparks of hope (Zinke, Tillerson, Mnuchin) but too many of his positions leave me in doubt. Artificial intelligence could hopefully reach a point that we can recreate TR, right? Then we just have to make sure that we craft that robot in a way some uppity lawyer can succeed in arguing its eligible to run for POTUS, and elect TR-bot 3000 as POTUS. Then I'll be happy.
> 
> I personally find that Black Diamond makes some very high quality products, but lucky for me my sister-in-law and her husband are both uppity ups in the company (she actually oversees and develops the clothing line) so I haven't had to pay for the items we enjoy! I've met Peter Metcalf on a number of occasions and have found that he is a pretty well aligned with hunting and fishing interests that are held by most sportsmen. We want access, now and in the future. Good science to dictate management plans (land use and wildlife both) and not politics. There are a number of issues we don't agree on, but in the end I think our differences are fewer than our similarities on the "multiple use, sustained yield" management of public lands.


Great post johnnycake. Sadly a few on this thread cannot see past their own personal biases and political affiliation to listen. You do a much better job of laying out how ridiculous it is to get up in arms over Black Diamond and now Patagonia flexing their muscles at a state legislature basically giving their economic impact any respect. Or mine, or yours for that matter. I agree, mineral development is important on public lands, but it's time they aren't the only ones who get a seat at the table with this states legislature and representatives. I am happy the outdoor industry is pushing back, and they should. Several hunting companies have made it clear their stance on this issue as well.


----------



## OriginalOscar

Two years ago Peter Metcalf was singing Utah's praises. Guess the government cheese was good. http://business.utah.gov/news/black-diamond-stay/


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

OriginalOscar said:


> Two years ago Peter Metcalf was singing Utah's praises. Guess the government cheese was good. http://business.utah.gov/news/black-diamond-stay/


Again OO, this is not about moving the company, this is about moving a convention that results in $50 million each year in direct spending in our state.


----------



## OriginalOscar

Since you don't read s#%t before you start typing let me restate something I noted earlier.

"The majority of outdoor retailer attendees want to stay in Utah" http://fox13now.com/2015/08/24/outdoor-retailer-show-to-stay-in-slc-through-2018/

Utah's travel-tourism industry was over $8B last year. If by some chance they did leave; $50M / $8B = .006% We will be fine!


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

OriginalOscar said:


> Since you don't read s#%t before you start typing let me restate something I noted earlier.
> 
> "The majority of outdoor retailer attendees want to stay in Utah" http://fox13now.com/2015/08/24/outdoor-retailer-show-to-stay-in-slc-through-2018/
> 
> Utah's travel-tourism industry was over $8B last year. If by some chance they did leave; $50M / $8B = .006% We will be fine!


You're right, what's $50 million in the salt lake valley.... it's not jobs, economic activity.... yeah you're right no one cares about $50 million anymore. As for attendees wanting it to stay here.... My guess? They could do just fine elsewhere and in some states even better. Have a nice night OO.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

https://gearjunkie.com/outdoor-industry-letter-to-utah-governor

I am glad to see companies sharing the goal of the state not getting a hold of our public lands. Lets disagree with them where we disagree, and come together and agree with them on areas we agree. This is a putting a good amount of pressure on Herbert and others in Utah. Combined with other backlash from the hunting community, the pressure is on now to stand against the transfer or sale of our public lands. I wish these groups could jump in aside from things like National Monuments, but I'll take there support in this war on public lands. Herbert actually said today that a series of smaller monuments might be a good compromise in the area, which shows you hes feeling the heat from all these companies readying to leave the state. Patagonia and several others have actually pulled out of the show completely and the list keeps getting longer. For anyone who thought they were bluffing this time, it appears they are not. Herbert is scheduled to meet with the Outdoor Industry on Thursday on public land issues, I sincerely hope the land transfer issue doesn't get lost in their fight for Bears Ears.

It's great to have their support on the land transfer issue, and NO I an many here will not agree with everything in this letter, or everything these companies stand for, but lets support them where we agree, and stomp this idea into the ground. National Monuments, protected areas, and management are all worries that go away when its transferred and sold, so we need to work together.


----------



## KineKilla

OriginalOscar said:


> Since you don't read s#%t before you start typing let me restate something I noted earlier.
> 
> "The majority of outdoor retailer attendees want to stay in Utah" http://fox13now.com/2015/08/24/outdoor-retailer-show-to-stay-in-slc-through-2018/
> 
> Utah's travel-tourism industry was over $8B last year. If by some chance they did leave; $50M / $8B = .006% We will be fine!


I like the math and agree that 0.006% seems insignificant on the surface...

However, I have no illusions of the state taking the hit to their pocket books. They will acquire that unearned revenue from all of us citizens as a tax increase, land access fees, ATV/Boat registration increase, etc.

Herb and his minions don't want to be bullied or threatened by any company, and I totally agree with that stance but they also realize that if the OR convention leaves it is not them who will suffer the loss of income..it is you, me and everyone else in this state. Same goes for the public lands, state, federal, etc.

Our state leaders want so much to regain possession or control over these lands, not because they feel like the Feds are taking over the state but because they want to sell, lease or develop every square inch of it for profit. They will use our money to fight Washington, sell our lands to make a profit, and do you think you're going to see a dime in your pocket? I think not.

Not only will we lose access to the land, we will also be paying to have that access restricted or stripped away entirely.

"I'm going to screw you out of whatever I can, and I'm going to use your money to do it!"


----------



## Kingfisher

so... why isn't the state currently selling off all its lands to those deplorable ranchers and miners and oil barons and anyone else who wants to by state land? and don't come back with school trust lands - where is the wholesale slaughter of state lands being practically given away to fat cats and politicians?
seriously folks - get a grip. I personally don't see anyone who is advocating as a political position, the wholesale disposition of public lands to the private sector. I don't see massive evidence of it happening in the past outside of some few land trades that I didn't approve of like snow basin.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Kingfisher said:


> so... why isn't the state currently selling off all its lands to those deplorable ranchers and miners and oil barons and anyone else who wants to by state land? and don't come back with school trust lands - where is the wholesale slaughter of state lands being practically given away to fat cats and politicians?
> seriously folks - get a grip. I personally don't see anyone who is advocating as a political position, the wholesale disposition of public lands to the private sector. I don't see massive evidence of it happening in the past outside of some few land trades that I didn't approve of like snow basin.


I mean just yesterday, but yeah you're right:

http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2017/02/oregon_takes_big_step_toward_p.html

Good luck. It doesn't matter if they're running off it, the state of Utah cannot absorb the giant acreage of land that is currently BLM or FS land. If you believe a state budget with a tax base of 3 million people can truly pay for these places without selling them, well I suggest you look at the link above where a state with a larger population can't even afford to take care of 82,000 acres.

The point the state trys to make is management, have you seen the majority of state owned and managed WMA's. They suck worse than federal land in most cases. It has nothing to do with management, and it will come down to HAVING to sale, not wanting to. I mean come on King you really believe in a state like Utah, one with a representative that just introduced legislation to SALE 3.3 million acres they aren't going to keep coming back for more? The states budget isn't just going to lose millions every year if all this land is dumped on them and not sale it when their budget is crumbling. You need to look at the realistic situation we will face down the road if the state of Utah ever gets these lands, but hey maybe one of you're favorite places will have to go up for auction before you wake up. By then there won't be enough people to speak for you to stop it. It's either stopped now, or like the story above it will take but a few votes to sale our national forests and BLM lands bit by bit until they are greatly diminished and we are heavily restricted on access.

PS Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Mike Lee, Gary Herbert in the past..... should I continue naming more that have proposed SELLING this land.

Direct quote from your current Governor in 2011:
"Why don't we sale some of the federal assets, and of course we have a lot of public land in Utah" "I would argue we could privatize this public land and have it developed"

That was 6 short years ago, lots of other politicians have proposed the same King. Your Governor right now is simply scared of the political backlash proposing to sale these places has now and has disguised his agenda with the term "transfer". Because guess what King, once the state has it, they say they can't pay for it, there will be nothing you can do at the point because it will HAVE to be sold and there will be no other choice.

Make no mistakes, transfer will equal sale:





Guess if national parks is all you hunt you have nothing to worry about King.


----------



## KineKilla

Here is the resolution as filed on the hill this year....

http://le.utah.gov/~2017/bills/static/HCR001.html

A couple of excerpts:

WHEREAS, the denial of equal sovereign rights to Utah by the federal government prevents Utah from making *necessary and desirable public improvements* and[/B]growing its economy to its full potential[/B], the way fully sovereign states can;
WHEREAS, this denies the citizens of Utah* jobs and economic prosperity* they would otherwise enjoy;
WHEREAS, by obtaining control of federal land in Utah, the state could ensure appropriate conservation, secure public access, *encourage multiple use, grow the economy*, and sustain proper land management.

It seems pretty clear to me that "Growing the Economy" is the #1 priority for anyone looking to gain control over these lands, and what "Necessary and Desirable Improvements" does nature need from us? I think the forests and wild lands are just fine the way they are without improvements.

Another bill is already out that authorizes State Parks to purchase or land-swap for tracts of BLM land in the state that would then be turned into state parks (which do not allow hunting, except for AI). If it's a state park instead of BLM, guess what...you now get to pay to be there.


----------



## swampfox

1-I, I think that is the part people keep missing. After a transfer occurs, whether or not politicians will want to sell the land is irrelevant. They will have no other choice but to sell or raise taxes dramatically, and higher taxes is even less popular than selling land. The state's own report said that oil had to be over $100/barrel for the state to break even, and what is it now, half of that? What do we do when we have those massive budget shortfalls due to the management costs of all those lands? We sell, sell, sell. Any place with oil, minerals, timber, or is beautiful enough that someone would pay to own it would be at risk. The best lands will be sold, and we will be left with what nobody wants. But sure, let's just call the outdoor retailers a bunch of granola eaters since they are actually trying to do something about it.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Also, it doesn't matter what our current governor, state senators, or state representatives in the House say...once that land has been given back to Utah state ownership, it opens up the possibility of those lands being sold for profit. Who is to say that the next governor or the next set of senators or representatives don't look to sell out? As is, those lands cannot be sold. I would rather stay in that realm...


----------



## Vanilla

I did not read all the posts, so I apologize if this has been hashed out, but here I go either way.

I do not applaud the OR group, or Patagonia or anyone else for pulling out of Utah in protest on this. Do you know what pulling the OR show out of Utah will do? It will simply mean that this influential group will lose their seat at the table, and will no longer have a voice in this issue. 

It will also only hurt people I know personally and am friends with that benefit financially from the show being here in SLC, and will no longer have that benefit. 

Additionally, they have made this about the Bears Ears Monument and the non-binding resolution the Utah legislature passed and the governor signed. Here is a little secret: I could hunt, hike, camp, and yes, fish, all over that area before the national monument designation. It was not in danger of being sold off (at this time). In fact, one can argue that my ability to recreate down in that area will be more limited now that it was before the national monument designation. So for this group to make their move about that issue like they have, is disingenuous at best. I completely believe there is so much more to this on the OR group side then they are publicly saying, and the Bears Ears issue is their scapegoat. I will be the first to admit I don't know what those other issues are, but I believe they exist and you are not getting the entire story. 

I will not be buying any gear from any company that boycotts Utah or advocates that the OR show go to another state. This is cutting off our nose to spite our face, and is totally counter productive to the cause to keep public lands public. 

Booooo to OR and their organizations right now, is all I can say. Stay with us, help us fight. Don't take your party to another table that will be a bigger financial benefit to you, and then say you're doing it for public land purposes in your press release.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Vanilla I get where you are coming from, but I don't fully agree. This issue has been building for a while now, and it's been brought to its tipping point. Utah needs the OR show more than the OR show needs Utah. If they move, their influence may go to a state where the officials will actually hear their concerns, in Utah it all falls on deaf ears. Utah again voted in anti-public land, career polticians and knew what we were getting. The OIA just released a statement the meeting basically didn't go well and they will be looking to leave ASAP. Utah sent $50 million a year packing for no good reason. You say they lose their seat at the table, but maybe in another state they'll have a seat at the table where the legislature actiually listens. Utah DOES have some of the most anti-public land rhetoric of anywhere in the nation and there should be some compromise on things from them rather than more of the same. OR is likely going to pull out because Patagonia along with several other companies on a growing list are leaving the show. Jobs and money are about to be lost in the Salt Lake valley because of this, and it is due to a toothless resolution and an anti-public land sentiment. Utah will lose on this and so will many of its residents. We shall see where it goes but maybe this states polticians should reconsider their anti-public lands agenda. I'm not talking Bears Ears I could care less about it. But when within the first 2 months of congress your state has called to rescind one monument, cut a 20 year monument down, introduced legislation to get rid of FS and BLM LEOs, and sale 3.3 million acres it's hard for me to think the Ourdoor industry wouldn't be a little bent out of shape. Will they stay will they leave? Is it right is it wrong? Guess we shall see. I hope the show stays here, and I hope the state legislature and representatives put down the anti-public lands rhetoric. It is a valuable asset to our state and losing it will hurt a lot more people and businesses than people realize. There are so many costs and indirect spending from the $50 million infused into SLC economy by these shows that will only be noticed once it's gone.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

I find this pretty hilarious as a defense from a republican of Utah on why to keep the show here:

“My argument for the people of Colorado is that we are still the outdoor capital,” Niederhauser said. “We have more federal land than they do. We have more open space than they do.”


YOU HAVE MORE FEDERAL LAND THAN THEY DO? I thought that federal land was so **** terrible it needed to go ASAP. Governor Herbert also used the fact we have "more public land" than Colorado. Hard to use that as a defense when your determined to dispose of it.


----------



## Vanilla

1-eye, with all due respect, it's ignorant to assert this is a "Utah problem." So they go to the recent democratic convert to our east in Colorado where their stream access laws are so public user friendly? Because I'll save you the research...they are not! They are even worse than Utah's crap fest we're trying to get overturned in court. 

Maybe they can go to the democratic stronghold of Oregon. Surely they value public lands more than these greedy Utah republicans. They value it so much they just voted to sell their oldest state forest to a private party. That will only remove 83,000~ acres of public land, so no big deal. 

Or how about Idaho. They surely wouldn't fall to the pressure of the day on public lands. (Wait...) 

Or let's head back east. We all know they value public lands out there! 

Screw Utah! Let's got to one of these states that is so much more friendly and immune from the pressure to get financial benefit off public resources. Because we all know there are so many states out there that fit the bill! (Not) Like I said, I'm not buying what they're selling, and I certainly won't celebrate them. 

Outdoor Retailer can do what they want. They don't owe Utah or me anything. But like I said before, there is more to this story they aren't telling. I just read two articles about the meeting. Sounds like OR was not amenable to anything, and their mind is made up. And I don't buy that it has anything to do with why they are saying it does. 

But I maintain that I will boycott any company that is involved with them if they hurt Utah in this way and pull out. And whether they are here for their shows or not, they will still benefit in a huge way from Utah's public lands.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

I don't disagree with you on a lot of what you said, and I feel bad for the people this is going to hurt....because despite what people think....this is going to hurt some people. I think Colorado is a likely home that will result in just as big of a show. I don't see why they would want to leave unless for the reasons they've stated? The show is doing great here and has continued to grow. I'm not sure what underlying reasons there would be to leave. I mean I'm sure Herbert and Utah representatives are in no way a friendly beacon to work with themselves. You have two sides set in their own belief and nether are going to budge. I think everyone thought they were bluffing, and now real world consequences will follow the uncompromising attitudes of both sides of this issue.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Guess that's that, OR will not consider Utah in its bid for a new home.

http://kutv.com/news/local/outdoor-trade-show-leaving-utah-after-2-decades


----------



## Vanilla

Where did I say it won't hurt people? Go back and read my first statement. I know it will hurt people. Some which I know personally! If it wasn't going to hurt people and Utah in general, I wouldn't give two craps about where the show was held. I never get to go anyway. 

We're getting screwed on this. And some people I see on social media and in the news are ignorantly celebrating it. I just don't get it.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Vanilla said:


> Where did I say it won't hurt people? Go back and read my first statement. I know it will hurt people. Some which I know personally! If it wasn't going to hurt people and Utah in general, I wouldn't give two craps about where the show was held. I never get to go anyway.
> 
> We're getting screwed on this. And some people I see on social media and in the news are ignorantly celebrating it. I just don't get it.


Sorry Vanilla I wasn't referring to you that said that there's just people who don't think this will have a real consequence on the people of Utah and it will. People thought they were bluffing and it appears they aren't. I'm simply saying t is very sad the people this will hurt. It is also sad both side couldn't come to a medium to work this out. I also fear that if they leave it will hurt the public land fight in Utah. Wherever they go however they will have a seat at the table. Wherever they go they've made it clear public lands are important. I could see them going next door to colorado and doing just as good. It is sad, but the legislature and governor could compromise a little to. Some city just got a nice bump in their economy in 2019, and SLC just got screwed not only by this show but also by the states reps. This developed pretty quickly and it seems the breaking point had past. Utah is hostile to public lands, sorry but they are, and while it's sad they are walking out and it screws our state, I honestly don't blame them. They also pulled the state of Utah from consideration to hold the Interbike Trade show currently held in Vegas that Utah was in the running for to host. Maybe you should appreciate an industry before you so quickly disregard them.


----------



## Catherder

Just saw it on the news. It's official now as 1 eye posted.

RE:


Vanilla said:


> We're getting screwed on this. And some people I see on social media and in the news are ignorantly celebrating it. I just don't get it.


I am sure that some are indeed celebrating and agree that may not be ideal. At the same time, this is the first time that I'm aware of that the State of Utah has sustained a palpable hit to the thing our politicians care about most, their bank account, due solely from their land grab policies. It may help send a strong message to our esteemed elected officials about the downside of their actions. It may also spur more people off the fence and into action in support of public lands. This morning, prior to his final call with the outdoor convention officials, Governor Herbert was quoted on channel 2 as saying he and his colleagues were "only doing what our citizens want" with respect to Bears Ears and public lands. (Even though public opinion polls show consistently a 50:50 split on approval of land grab/public lands policies.) Perhaps, as more people are disadvantaged by these dumb State policies, public opinion will slant away from land grab actions and Herbert and Co. won't even be able to say what he did this morning.

Finally, whereas the Outdoor industry has a strong vested interest in keeping public lands public, it is definitely within their ethical right to leave a State, for their convention, that has been the leader nationwide in Land Grab politics, even if Colorado is offering them a sweetheart deal, along with all the cheap marijuana the conventioneers can smoke.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

You can like what they did or not. This sends a clear message public land policy matters. Utah just let the opportunity at 2 extremely lucrative roadshows walk away FOR ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. For two tootheless measures on monument that will get tucked away in DC and not looked at. For a public land transfer that about half of the states voters support, and nationwide is far less than that. Utahs resolutions and transfer rhetoric just cost real world jobs and money. Catherder makes a good point about the fact that Bears Ears whether you like it or hate it is not a settled matter. Most polls show a 50/50 split on voters on ALL these issue. It's sad for some, but this is what consequences of stupidity look like. Aside from the $40+million they cost this state from this one show they've cost taxpayers millions with their studies and lawsuit funds on this issue. Utah tried to send a message.....it just got one sent back.


----------



## OriginalOscar

Utah and SLC will be fine! If someone doesn't love ya; let it go and go find a new friend. Utah and SLC are great places to hold conventions. There are lot's of fish in the sea.


----------



## swampfox

I don't know how to feel, on one hand I'm really happy to hear that a group with real money is out there fighting for public lands, but on the other hand I'm sad to see them leave and it will certainly hurt our state. I'm also a little disappointed that the bargaining chip of "we'll leave if you don't support public land" is now spent and that influence will be leaving Utah. However, it's not like that bargaining power had any influence over our politicians to this point, as they have had complete disregard for public land. I don't think the outdoor retailers had any other choice, and I don't blame them for what they did. Hopefully this is one of those bargaining tactics where you walk out to get the other side to give a little. I'd like to see Herbert come back to the table with some concessions. I also wish the retailers would make this less about Bear's Ears and more about the transfer. That is a much larger issue. If there is no transfer, it doesn't really matter all that much if it is a monument or not. It will still be accessible for people to go visit. If there is a transfer, that monument designation becomes much more important IMO.


----------



## swampfox

OO,

You'd be hard-pressed to lure in another convention as big as the OR show. That's a big one. Especially since the state already told RMEF to get lost...


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

OriginalOscar said:


> Utah and SLC will be fine! If someone doesn't love ya; let it go and go find a new friend. Utah and SLC are great places to hold conventions. There are lot's of fish in the sea.


Yeah but there will be plenty who suffer over this. A show that has a $40+ million a year impact in that short of time is not so easily replaced OO, that's a big show especially for the short time it's here, along with the bike show that would have also been big, Utah just lost a lot of money. As there headlines said, the Outdoor Industry loves Utah, but it appears Utah doesn't love the Outdoor Industry. Terrible public land representatives.


----------



## OriginalOscar

Utah tourism & hospitality business $8.2B last year. $40M is 4% We are fine.

I give Herbert props for his willingness to try to have a conversation with people who had already made up their mind to leave. 

At the end of the day Utah still owns the Outdoor Industry. We have the best National Parks, State Parks and outdoor lifestyle. We fostered the environment for that show and industry to develop; they didn't foster that lifestyle in Utah.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

OriginalOscar said:


> Utah tourism & hospitality business $8.2B last year. $40M is 4% We are fine.
> 
> I give Herbert props for his willingness to try to have a conversation with people who had already made up their mind to leave.
> 
> At the end of the day Utah still owns the Outdoor Industry. We have the best National Parks, State Parks and outdoor lifestyle. We fostered the environment for that show and industry to develop; they didn't foster that lifestyle in Utah.


OO you realize Herbert jumped right to them right? He knew Utah didn't want to lose this and that's why he was quick to jump in. It is somewhat significant and will be extremely hard to replace. Sounds to me like they talked, and the OI let their views be known, got the same run around, and quickly decided it was over. This was bad for Utah you can try to spin it but this will hurt people and SLC economy.


----------



## LostLouisianian

OriginalOscar said:


> Utah tourism & hospitality business $8.2B last year. $40M is 4% We are fine.
> 
> I give Herbert props for his willingness to try to have a conversation with people who had already made up their mind to leave.
> 
> At the end of the day Utah still owns the Outdoor Industry. We have the best National Parks, State Parks and outdoor lifestyle. We fostered the environment for that show and industry to develop; they didn't foster that lifestyle in Utah.


I think if anyone watched the news last night you would come away pissed at the Outdoor Show folks. The governor tried to talk to them and they shut him out. He tried to set up a meeting with them to go over their concerns and try to work out a compromise and essentially the Outdoor Show told him to kiss their @$$. They are acting like my 3 year old grandson when you take away his favorite toy or tell him to go clean up his room. Both sides have a point and validity to their arguments but only ONE side was willing to work through them and discuss them like rational adults and it wasn't the whining, temper tantrum throwing Outdoor Show people. And don't get me started on them either because I tended to the wounded that day long ago in SLC when the tornado came through downtown. I was running for cover and was the first one to realize that it was a tornado because I'd been in them before. People didn't believe me and just stood there watching. As soon as it passed I ran outside to what was left of the tents and started tending to people's injuries as best I could. I care about all people, not just those with similar views as mine. However there comes a point where two people cannot agree and they have to step back and take a break. Adults find common ground and try to compromise, children stomp their feet and walk away. End of my rant.


----------



## Vanilla

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Utah just let the opportunity at 2 extremely lucrative roadshows walk away FOR ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. For two tootheless measures on monument that will get tucked away in DC and not looked at.


I guess the reason why this move upsets me so much is just the other side of this coin. OIA just pulled the OR Show from Utah FOR ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. For two toothless measures on monument that will get tucked away in DC and not get looked at.

The OR Show absolutely benefited from being held in SLC over the years. It has grown, become popular, and provided millions and millions in revenue for these companies over the years, and much of this was due specifically to the benefits and enticements that SLC had to offer. Now they are turning their backs on the people of Utah, yet will still market and benefit from Utah's public lands--even after they move. It's why I won't support their companies any longer. I'll find companies that actually stand with the people of Utah, not take their millions of balls and go home.

Neither side operated in good faith on this. If you can't see that, you're wrong. Period. This sucks. We lose. And too many are okay with it. Screw those trying to take our lands, and screw OIA and their OR Show. I'm going to peacefully protest this by ripping every Patagonia jacket I see in SLC off the person and burn it on the street. #notmycompany


----------



## gdog

Vanilla said:


> Screw those trying to take our lands....


Its your gov. representatives that "we" voted into position......


----------



## Vanilla

I'm very aware of who it is. I've been fighting for public access in Utah for 9 years now. I've spent hundreds of hours calling, emailing, researching, attending meetings, town halls, and even been a part of interim legislative committees and the facade that was a governor's task force on the issue. This is an issue near and dear to my heart. One that is more important to me than any other issue involving our government. That is another reason it pains me to watch what could be a powerful partner walk away from the table and leave us high and dry. 

You want to know why those elected officials aren't sweating this? Because $40 million a year is a drop in the bucket to what the royalties on the resources on that land could be. Yet now we have to fight that without the support of the outdoor retailer industry. Good luck to us, I guess. I'm still confident we can win the war.


----------



## DallanC

Outdoor Retailers has been wanting to leave Utah for years. How many articles have we seen where they complain about not enough floor space, wanting the convention center torn down and rebuilt etc etc. This latest thing is nothing new... they have wanted a excuse to leave for too long, now they have it and like a petulant child, want to slam the door on the way out of the room while crying "SO THERE!"

Let'em go. Maybe the outdoor expo in southtown can use the SLC convention center now. Thats a way better show anyway.


-DallanC


----------



## gdog

Vanilla said:


> You want to know why those elected officials aren't sweating this? Because $40 million a year is a drop in the bucket to what the royalties on the resources on that land could be.


Couldn't agree more....so why are you condemning the O.R. show? They don't lose anything by jumping ship on UT. Herbie and crew are not going to be swayed. As you stated...way too much $$ to keep in the family. O.R. will most likely make a better deal somewhere else, while at the same time be able to make a "grande statement" which could be their greatest marketing strategy yet.

You really think they give a **** that LostLouisianian and you are boycotting their products (;-) )? You think you represent the demo of the majority % of buyers of their products...or do you think this decision plays well with the mass majority of people who buy their products and support this action? Have you read Patagonia's mission statement and others? The majority of their customers are applauding these groups for sticking up to the "land-grabbers".

You think people in the hunting and fishing industry are not also grumbling about UT policy makers? Facebook pages and other outdoor related forums filled with comments and support for what the OR show is doing. I'm not happy they have jumped shipped, but I'm not condemning them for what seems to obviously be a strategic business move..that most likely will work out in their benefit.


----------



## Catherder

LostLouisianian said:


> I think if anyone watched the news last night you would come away pissed at the Outdoor Show folks. The governor tried to talk to them and they shut him out. He tried to set up a meeting with them to go over their concerns and try to work out a compromise and essentially the Outdoor Show told him to kiss their @$$.


It's funny, but I watched the same news stories and got a very different take. Herbert was visibly upset at the prospect of losing the OR show and wanted to talk them out of it, but was *NOT* going to compromise on their stance on TPL and Bears Ears. *Neither *side was willing to compromise here and the inevitable split occurred. Between his interview and the press release sent out by Herberts office, I felt that the guv was acting like the teenager that just got dumped by the hot (ex) girlfriend. Again, this is the first time that our politicians have suffered a palpably negative result from their land grab policies and maybe a harsh reality may set in. Herbert sure did seem desperate to talk the OR folks out of their decision, so I don't accept that our pols feel it is no big deal to them to lose the OR show.

Next, I disagree that the OR show leaving is going to make it harder for Utahns to fight TPL here. These companies will still support groups here fighting TPL and for related issues like stream access (perhaps moreso). They still have a vested interest in keeping Utahs public lands public as it enhances their sales. Lastly, TPL is a regional issue, not just a Utah one. A strong stand like this can help increase awareness and sway public opinion nationally. That is important for any major TPL scheme, as it would need to pass the US congress.


----------



## middlefork

So here is an Email from OR. Lots to look at but I have bolded just one paragraph.

Our Goal is Not Just to Speak. Our Goal is to be Heard.

The last week has certainly been an interesting time as a show organizer and I am most thankful for the incredible team at Outdoor Retailer, our partner - the Outdoor Industry Association, rep associations, retailers and brands, in addition to the hundreds of emails offering support.

We respect that brands have to make decisions that reflect their values. However, in the last week, the heart-felt expressions of support for the show from exhibitors of all sizes have far outweighed those choosing not to participate. Iconic brands such as adidas Outdoor, Ibex, The Conservation Alliance, The North Face, REI and Wolverine Worldwide, among many others have not only reinforced their intent to come to SLC this summer, but also, will make their voices louder than ever before. (Please look at unity.outdoorretailer.com for specific expressions of support.)

We can all most easily agree that this is not a question of inaction. Rather, it is a matter of what action.

This is not a one-and-done issue. While Bears Ears National Monument status is a lightning rod, it is just the most currently visible example of what will be a long, hard series of fights the outdoor community needs to not only raise our voices about, but, even more importantly, about which we need to be heard.

Outdoor Retailer is the only gathering where the entire industry comes together to conduct commerce, share best practices and exchange ideas. There is no other event where the most respected iconic brands and retailers - large, medium and small in size - show up "en force."

But the boycott of Outdoor Retailer levies the most significant negative impact on those medium and small-sized companies that count on the show to conduct business. We have a unique, maybe even singular, opportunity to coalesce, organize, speak and lay plans to make a difference around public land awareness in such a way that it is not only heard but that it can make a positive difference.

Our goal is not just to speak. Our goal is to be heard.

Now is the time for action, not words. These are turbulent times with passions running high - a wonderful trait of the industry we serve. We share these passions. We hear you, are listening closely and taking action. Here is what we are doing:

*An Ideal Venue: As swiftly as humanly possible, we are doing the work necessary to procure potential alternative locations for Outdoor Retailer. Though we may wish it different, this is far from a snap of the fingers thing to make happen. Convention centers and hotels are not sitting idle. In every instance of every potential venue, there are hurdles that have to be cleared and that simply cannot be done overnight.*

We expect that our current proposal process - which we initiated before any of the company withdrawal announcements last week - will take between 60 and 90 days. We are exploring options for expediting this process and will keep you updated on the progress.

Gather Best Ideas: Outdoor Retailer and Outdoor Industry Association will harness the creative ideas already being put forth by exhibitors to express their opinions at Outdoor Retailer Summer Market. Through unity.outdoorretailer.com, we are exploring options including utilizing the time and funds earmarked for the Industry Breakfast as a time to express our opinions; rallies; conservation town halls; and a community camp out using city parks, among other ideas. We must work within the rules of the city, the existing permits we have and other laws by which we must abide. Our team has already begun to investigate what steps need to be taken to accommodate those activities. We are working in tandem with parties that have put forth ideas including brands, retailers, non-profits, rep groups and others.

We Need You: We need your voice. We need your support. And we need your creative ideas at unity.outdoorretailer.com. Please visit the site and lend your ideas to the community. We will provide updates on what we've gathered on Monday, February 27th.

Thank you,

Marisa Nicholson
Show Director of Outdoor Retailer


----------



## gdog

And from yesterdays meeting with Herbert....

"Outdoor Industry Association, representing more than 1200 outdoor businesses nationally, including more than 50 in Utah, today held a call with Utah Governor Gary Herbert in an effort to achieve a common understanding of the value Americans place on our public lands and our right to access those lands for recreation.

OIA was joined on the call by the leadership of Patagonia, The North Face, REI and Outdoor Retailer.

*Unfortunately, what we heard from Governor Herbert was more of the same. It is clear that the governor indeed has a different perspective on the protections of public lands from that of our members and the majority of Western state voters, both Republicans and Democrats - that's bad for our American heritage, and it's bad for our businesses. We are therefore continuing our search for a new home as soon as possible.*"

https://outdoorindustry.org/article...ons-utahs-recreation-economy/#articles,policy

So off they go....

Maybe we can get a Masonry convention to take their place...hear there's going to be a lot of wall building soon:shock::mrgreen:


----------



## toymanator

DallanC said:


> Outdoor Retailers has been wanting to leave Utah for years. How many articles have we seen where they complain about not enough floor space, wanting the convention center torn down and rebuilt etc etc. This latest thing is nothing new... they have wanted a excuse to leave for too long, now they have it and like a petulant child, want to slam the door on the way out of the room while crying "SO THERE!"
> 
> Let'em go. Maybe the outdoor expo in southtown can use the SLC convention center now. Thats a way better show anyway.
> 
> -DallanC


Couldn't agree more, for years they have been lobbying for Salt Lake to build a large hotel near the convention center to accommodate the show. Every time a proposal has come up people are up in arms that Utah would even consider using tax dollars to incentivize the development of the hotel. Now the Outdoor Retailer show is using the public lands argument as a scape goat. (Great PR move on there part to make Utah look like the villain) There is obviously a lot more the story than we are hearing in the news. I would wager that the plan all along was for the OR show was not to renew the contract at the end of 2018. The grass must appear greener on the other side.


----------



## middlefork

Another excerpt from a Outdoor newsletter.

"Outdoor Retailer organizer Emerald Expositions has already initiated the RFP process to solicit bids from alternative venues, and expects responses within 60 to 90 days. As reported, Denver has openly coveted the convention to go with the SIA show, and Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper is a strong advocate for protecting public lands. But Denver is a longer drive from the mountains, and would have to expand its existing convention facilities by over 50% to accommodate OR without auxiliary tents. On the plus side, Denver has plenty of hotel rooms and restaurants."

And what makes anyone think that SLC or Utah isn't going to be seen in a different light by other conventions that may be considering coming Utah.


----------



## Springville Shooter

Sad to hear that we are losing the OR convention. Maybe the SHOT show will get tired of Nevada and give us a look?--------SS


----------



## LostLouisianian

middlefork said:


> Another excerpt from a Outdoor newsletter.
> 
> "Outdoor Retailer organizer Emerald Expositions has already initiated the RFP process to solicit bids from alternative venues, and expects responses within 60 to 90 days. As reported, Denver has openly coveted the convention to go with the SIA show, and Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper is a strong advocate for protecting public lands. But Denver is a longer drive from the mountains, and would have to expand its existing convention facilities by over 50% to accommodate OR without auxiliary tents. On the plus side, Denver has plenty of hotel rooms and restaurants."
> 
> And what makes anyone think that SLC or Utah isn't going to be seen in a different light by other conventions that may be considering coming Utah.


This isn't going to have an impact at all on other conventions. My son works with these conventions nationwide doing the advertising, marketing, ticket sales etc. He laughed at all the hoopla about it. Said they will replace it before anyone realizes it isn't there anymore. Opened up a great opportunity for him to sell open space now too.


----------



## middlefork

LostLouisianian said:


> This isn't going to have an impact at all on other conventions. My son works with these conventions nationwide doing the advertising, marketing, ticket sales etc. He laughed at all the hoopla about it. Said they will replace it before anyone realizes it isn't there anymore. Opened up a great opportunity for him to sell open space now too.


Good to hear! Convention space is kind of fickle. Too much space , not enough space, not the right time of year, any number of things.
Glad somebody is going to make a buck on the outcome.

SS the shot show is too big for SLC bummer


----------



## Lonetree

LostLouisianian said:


> This isn't going to have an impact at all on other conventions. My son works with these conventions nationwide doing the advertising, marketing, ticket sales etc. He laughed at all the hoopla about it. Said they will replace it before anyone realizes it isn't there anymore. Opened up a great opportunity for him to sell open space now too.


Interbike has already pulled consideration of Utah because of this, and others will be following suit. Most of the marketing for SLC conventions revolved around the fact that the Salt palace was the venue for OR. There will be no Salt palace expansion, or new hotel because of this decision.

When you look at the textile and hard materials side of the industry, the overlap into all other industries is huge. And those industries follow and ride OR for a reason, this goes way beyond the retail side of these industries, and goes to the core of the manufacturing side. Most hunting products are born out of these other industries because of this.

Furthermore, the outdoor industry, that is centered mostly in the West, and like hunting and fishing is based around public land access, accounts for a combined economy that is much bigger than the OR shows. Many of these companies, like Black Diamond are based in Utah, or have a Utah presence.

There is a bigger movement to lure these industries out of Utah to other Western states. This is big in the fishing industry(I wonder why), and includes the firearms industry. This is not isolated to bunny bugger, posy sniffers, and amounts to some big dollars, and jobs.

There are several smaller outdoor companies that are actively looking at other states right now, with many more that have crossed Utah off their list when they moved from the Coast in the last few years. One business does not matter, but an entire industry does.

Some more specific examples: 2 years ago a fly rod company that employs 3-4 people was looking to relocate from CA to UT. They spent allot of time in Utah, and myself and others lobbied them to make the move. With the stream access issue being what it was, this company moved to CO instead, and is currently expanding.

Another company that came in from the East coast with two employees, and is now 7 people a few years later, is already looking at leaving Utah and relocating to another Western state. This is industry wide. If people like Peter Metcalf wanted to move Black Diamond to CO, there would be a boat load of CO state incentives for him to do it, tax breaks, etc. He has instead been actively employing and recruiting business into Utah. Peter moved Black Diamond here from CA for allot of reasons, and a big one was public lands. I know the Metcalfs, they are wonderful people, that truly love this state.

This is not about left or right, it is about public lands, and the fight to keep them public. And from an economic point of view, public lands are good business and politics whether you are Black diamond or Kuiu.

Looks like I have to keep my promise and drive to OR in CO in 2019, or maybe I will get lucky and they will hold it somewhere else. I was one of the hardliners(manufacture/retailer) that has been pushing OIA from the earliest days to leave because of Utah's public land stance. I have been "boycotting" OR for years to get this point across. I have attended once since taking this stance, and that was to get BHA brass in to network with industry people.

They use to tell me that my "boycott" would not do any good, and that Peter was all talk. I need not beg to differ..........


----------



## LostLouisianian

No most of the venues did no revolve around OR. But you're entitled to your opinion. My sons $9,000 commission check for January is all I need since he's actually in this business. He's already ahead of that for February so I'll not believe the world has ended because the OR show took their toys to go play in somebody's else's sandbox


----------



## BPturkeys

Nobody except you and your family care much about your son's last paycheck, or for that matter, the rise or fall of the convention business in general...what we are concerned about is the loss of our...that includes you, your son, his family and families forthcoming...say it out loud... OUR PUBLIC LANDS! 
I personally don't want the OR to leave, but yeah, Utah and SLC will survive, and so will the OR. What I do want to say to the OR and the associated members is THANK YOU FOR YOUR SHOW OF BACKBONE in truly a "win or loose" battle. Now if we could just get the hunting community to be a little more aggressive, maybe, just maybe we could save the public lands for the next and all following generations. 
Remember the words PRIVATE PROPERTY are always followed with the words KEEP OUT!


----------



## Lonetree

LostLouisianian said:


> No most of the venues did no revolve around OR. But you're entitled to your opinion. My sons $9,000 commission check for January is all I need since he's actually in this business. He's already ahead of that for February so I'll not believe the world has ended because the OR show took their toys to go play in somebody's else's sandbox


No one said the world ended. But this is, and will be bigger than the 45 million(hard number, it is estimated to be much bigger) a year that OR generates.

And yes, the marketing pitch to other shows relied heavily on OR. That is a big part of why Interbike pulled consideration of Utah after the OIA's announcement.

No one wants to leave Utah, but Utah is hostile to public lands, and the outdoor industry in general. This hostility is bad for outdoor business, hunting, fishing, backpacking, etc.

Get back to us in 2019 about those commissions, that is when this will start to be felt. Currently the status quo is still in place, nothing has changed on the ground, yet...... Those checks don't tell us anything at the moment. I've been in the outdoor industry for over 20 years, and engaged with OIA and OR issues since 2004. Like I said, call it opinion, "all talk", or whatever you like, that was Utah's stance for several years as well. This was the free market response to that nonsense.


----------



## Lonetree

BPturkeys said:


> Nobody except you and your family care much about your son's last paycheck, or for that matter, the rise or fall of the convention business in general...what we are concerned about is the loss of our...that includes you, your son, his family and families forthcoming...say it out loud... OUR PUBLIC LANDS!
> I personally don't want the OR to leave, but yeah, Utah and SLC will survive, and so will the OR. What I do want to say to the OR and the associated members is THANK YOU FOR YOUR SHOW OF BACKBONE in truly a "win or loose" battle. Now if we could just get the hunting community to be a little more aggressive, maybe, just maybe we could save the public lands for the next and all following generations.
> Remember the words PRIVATE PROPERTY are always followed with the words KEEP OUT!


^^^^^^^This is what this is all about, all other tangents aside. Public lands, public access, and the very core of "Western" hunting and fishing culture and heritage of the last century.


----------



## Trooper

I wonder if the legislature would act differently if they heard, "I'm a fifth generation restaurant server, my ancestors pushed a hand cart to Salt Lake and started busing tables here before anyone had even heard of sushi and now the gosh darn state government is trying to push me out of the business..."


----------



## paddler

Looks like the OR got tired of lip service from Herbert and all the BS from our legislature and congressional delegation. Specifically:

*The retailers wanted the state to end its crusade to take over federal lands and stop pushing for the reversal of Bears Ears and gutting of the Antiquities Act.*

http://www.sltrib.com/news/4955606-155/gehrke-stubborn-drill-baby-drill-rhetoric-philosophy-costs

The Antiquities Act was used by Roosevelt in 1908 to create the Grand Canyon National Monument. Local interests who wanted to develop and despoil the area pushed back at the time, but it appears that Roosevelt's vision of preservation has worked out pretty well. This is an ongoing battle, the lands are federal and locals have an overdeveloped sense of entitlement. Preserving these areas for future generations should trump short-sighted exploitation by greedy special interests. That is the position of the OIA and I agree.


----------



## Lonetree

Trooper said:


> I wonder if the legislature would act differently if they heard, "I'm a fifth generation restaurant server, my ancestors pushed a hand cart to Salt Lake and started busing tables here before anyone had even heard of sushi and now the gosh darn state government is trying to push me out of the business..."


No, because that _is_ the story of many of us in this industry. My family came with Brigham Young in 1847. My ancestors saw the SL valley, well before the rest of that first party.

As for our legislators, who says they are locals, or have any roots themselves deeper than a generation? I would make the argument that our legislature is infested with imported "Eastern" ideology, threatening "Western" tradition.


----------



## LostLouisianian

Resource extraction, wildlife management and land preservation are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## Lonetree

LostLouisianian said:


> Resource extraction, wildlife management and land preservation are not mutually exclusive.


No one here said they were. This is about public lands, and keeping them public and accessible, despite tangent arguments to the contrary. Utah has actively supported closing access to public streams with the state supreme court ruling that the state's position was unconstitutional. The state has the same position when it comes to federal public lands, plain and simple.

People can wiggle all they want. The state of Utah wants to transfer the ownership of federal lands to the states. This will have the affect of reducing access for hunting and fishing, despite any argument otherwise. Such positions are not in the best interest of hunting, fishing, or the outdoor industry in general, including the firearms industry as they are finding out. Oil, coal, natural gas, bad wildlife "management", or otherwise........

Federal public lands have been the underpinning of the Western hunting culture and heritage for over 100 years, and that needs to be defended, not "transferred" or sold off.


----------



## gdog

Lonetree said:


> I would make the argument that our legislature is infested with imported "Eastern" ideology, threatening "Western" tradition.


I see Utah entitlist mentality trying to claim western tradition.


----------



## Lonetree

gdog said:


> I see Utah entitlist mentality trying to claim western tradition.


Yup! LB is a fraud, through and through, but a B non the less.


----------



## paddler

LostLouisianian said:


> Resource extraction, wildlife management and land preservation are not mutually exclusive.


People don't like to camp next to oil rigs. People travel to Utah from around the nation and around the world to see vast expanses of pristine landscapes. The future of rural Utah is tourism, according to local business owners:

http://www.sltrib.com/news/4941386-155/escalante-business-owners-rebel-against-anti-monument


----------



## Lonetree

paddler said:


> People don't like to camp next to oil rigs. People travel to Utah from around the nation and around the world to see vast expanses of pristine publicly accessible landscapes. The future of rural Utah is tourism, according to local business owners:
> 
> http://www.sltrib.com/news/4941386-155/escalante-business-owners-rebel-against-anti-monument


Sorry, I had to edit.


----------



## paddler

Lonetree said:


> Sorry, I had to edit.


Monuments obviously imply public accessibility.

And who or what is LB, anyway?


----------



## Lonetree

paddler said:


> Monuments obviously imply public accessibility.
> 
> And who or what is LB, anyway?


I know for many it is obvious, but this very discussion brings what we have taken for granted for so long, into question. Utah's position on the Bears Ear NM for example was central to the OIA decision.

LB is the self given moniker of one Greg Hughes, it stands for Lucky *******.

After WWI my grandfather took on "Mr. B", and my grandmother would explain that it was a "term of endearment". I happen to have a bit of admiration for Hughes' story, but he simply is not any sort of epitomization of the West, or it's core values. Let alone a voice for those in San Juan county, even though he will try to tell you he is.


----------



## stimmie78

I for one am glad that Utah is pushing back on Bears Ears. Locking up that large of a chunk of land is asinine. Many say they want to preserve lands for future generations. Explain to me what future generations will be able to do with 1.2 million acres of land that is locked up and "preserved"? When it comes to the state wanting control of the Federal lands, I have mixed feelings. The feds have done a terrible job allowing access on lands that I grew up driving on roads within them. I'm only 38. Many of the roads I drove as a high school student are closed for the sole purpose of "preserving" them for future generations. There were multiple public hearings prior to closures. Yet none of the input from those using the lands was considered and access was closed. Will the state do better? Possibly. Will they do worse? Possibly. But to me, any change in direction is better than the way things are going now. Having hiked on roads that have been closed 15 years ago, that I remember driving on, the only thing different is the dead fall that has blocked the road. The ruts and puddles and all other signs of the road are still there. We don't need more wilderness. Some of you may disagree with that, but I firmly believe we don't need more. The feds tried to make a wilderness area near me years ago just because it was inaccessible since it was a steep canyon. The fact that it's inaccessible makes it a wilderness itself. It doesn't need federal designation. There's got to be a happy medium of local input and control, with federal ownership.


----------



## paddler

stimmie78 said:


> I for one am glad that Utah is pushing back on Bears Ears. Locking up that large of a chunk of land is asinine. Many say they want to preserve lands for future generations. Explain to me what future generations will be able to do with 1.2 million acres of land that is locked up and "preserved"? When it comes to the state wanting control of the Federal lands, I have mixed feelings. The feds have done a terrible job allowing access on lands that I grew up driving on roads within them. I'm only 38. Many of the roads I drove as a high school student are closed for the sole purpose of "preserving" them for future generations. There were multiple public hearings prior to closures. Yet none of the input from those using the lands was considered and access was closed. Will the state do better? Possibly. Will they do worse? Possibly. But to me, any change in direction is better than the way things are going now. Having hiked on roads that have been closed 15 years ago, that I remember driving on, the only thing different is the dead fall that has blocked the road. The ruts and puddles and all other signs of the road are still there. We don't need more wilderness. Some of you may disagree with that, but I firmly believe we don't need more. The feds tried to make a wilderness area near me years ago just because it was inaccessible since it was a steep canyon. The fact that it's inaccessible makes it a wilderness itself. It doesn't need federal designation. There's got to be a happy medium of local input and control, with federal ownership.


According to what I've read, the land will not be "locked up". It's not wilderness. Hunting will continue under the jurisdiction of the DWR, logging, grazing, fishing, etc, will be unaffected. Private property rights will be preserved. This area is largely undeveloped, the monument designation will assure that going forward. The management plan will be developed with input from all stakeholders. This is a very good thing, and will benefit local economies just as the Grand Staircase has for Escalante.:

https://www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/bear-ears-fact-sheet.pdf

Once again, our "Drill, Baby, Drill" local political hacks are on the wrong side of history.


----------



## swampfox

Unfortunately, the public lands transfer is not a debate of state vs federal management. It's a debate of privatization vs publicly accessible land. Given the proper resources, it's possible that the state would be able to manage the land better than the Feds. However, the state has nowhere near the amount of money necessary to manage those lands, and they will be forced to sell. They will have no other choice. The state's own report lays out the economics of the transfer, and they don't look good unless oil is over $100/barrel. And that is why you will never see any of these folks that are pushing a land transfer include a provision that the lands can't be sold. The transfer is impossible otherwise. They want to sell.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

stimmie78 said:


> I for one am glad that Utah is pushing back on Bears Ears. Locking up that large of a chunk of land is asinine. Many say they want to preserve lands for future generations. Explain to me what future generations will be able to do with 1.2 million acres of land that is locked up and "preserved"? When it comes to the state wanting control of the Federal lands, I have mixed feelings. The feds have done a terrible job allowing access on lands that I grew up driving on roads within them. I'm only 38. Many of the roads I drove as a high school student are closed for the sole purpose of "preserving" them for future generations. There were multiple public hearings prior to closures. Yet none of the input from those using the lands was considered and access was closed. Will the state do better? Possibly. Will they do worse? Possibly. But to me, any change in direction is better than the way things are going now. Having hiked on roads that have been closed 15 years ago, that I remember driving on, the only thing different is the dead fall that has blocked the road. The ruts and puddles and all other signs of the road are still there. We don't need more wilderness. Some of you may disagree with that, but I firmly believe we don't need more. The feds tried to make a wilderness area near me years ago just because it was inaccessible since it was a steep canyon. The fact that it's inaccessible makes it a wilderness itself. It doesn't need federal designation. There's got to be a happy medium of local input and control, with federal ownership.


I find it ridiculous when people act like losing road access means they are locked out. It's a non-argument. You aren't locked out and they improve hunting and wildlife habitat IMO. I am for closing some roads, we aren't running out of them nor will we ever. You'll find out what locked out really is when a no trespassing sign meets you where a closed road used to. You'll be wishing for that closed road when the state can't pay its bills, is nearly bankrupt by a major wildfire and sales a prime chunk of land to compensate for their budget deficit. As for Bears Ears it can be taken back or left its all the same to me. Maybe future generations will simply enjoy it just because it's there. Wild places will become more valueable not less. Just like so many places that were controversial in their time they are now some of the most accepted and valued places anywhere. Not everywhere needs to justify its existence trough economics IMO, and places jest kept there to keep there is good in some instances.


----------



## Lonetree

Closed roads: That is a mixed bag. I have been following RS2477 claims for 20 years now, and currently believe that private gating of FS and county roads have "closed" more miles of road than the FS ever has, at least in many parts of the state. I can agree and disagree on both sides of that argument to some degree or another.

But as has been mentioned before, this is about keeping it public, and keeping access. And no closing a few roads does not necessarily mean closing access. For the counter argument, there was a new OHV route opened through the heart of the Bears Ear NM as part of it's designation. 

A more appropriate apples to apples argument would be: Some closed roads on federal land, verses the states position which will be to actually lock you out completely. And I don't need the "what if" arguments about state "management". We don't need to look any further than the stream access issue to know where Utah officially stands on access. That would be with the "No Trespassing" signs aimed directly at all of us. The state constitution guaranteed access in that case, but the Utah legislature and governor said "We don't care, get out". 

If we play devils advocate for the state of Utah, and say that they keep it all public, and we have complete access. What says that OR, WA, CA, ID, NM, NV, MT, WY, ND, or AZ will do the same? Are we willing to trade all of that public land that we currently have access to, so that Utah can control the federal land within it's borders? Don't get me wrong, I'm a Utahan, and the family has been since before statehood, but I am an American first and foremost, and part of that is my birth right to public lands. 

How does Utah pay every American for their birth right share of public lands that we have been paying for????? They can't, without selling a huge portion of it, and locking us out of it. Utah has no means to own it otherwise. If they did, they would be buying land, not trying to steal it.


----------



## BPturkeys

If you have noticed, lately the Utah politicians have been trying to move the argument from "transfer" to "access" in an attempt to get us to think "access" is the issue and we forget about any back door plan to gain ownership until the deed is done. We need to watch these people very closely with utmost diligence...remember they are not only politicians but most are lawyers too.
They are cleverly trying to convince us that they will never deny "access" to public land, but they have completely stopped mentioning even the word "transfer" of Fed public land to the state. Don't get caught up in the "access" war when "transfer" is the real battle ground.


----------



## Lonetree

BP, very good point. That is why I like to tie the stream access issue to the lands transfer issue, as they are one in the same on many levels. In the case of stream access, we the people of the state of Utah have a con-stee-too-shun-al right to our publicly held waters that was enumerated in the state constitution at the time of statehood. But the states position is to lock us out, and the supporters of this like to make stickman tangential arguments about littering, to support the states position. And that position has been, and remains to be, to lock the public out of our public waters. Public waters that are held in trust for us, we the people of Utah. 

Then look at SITLA lands, while there is a clear difference in the sale of those lands, and the mandate to generate revenue for their intended purpose, schools, look at the access issues of SITLA lands. We as hunters are extorted funds for access to some of these, taking that funding away from wildlife, while many more parcels are simply arbitrarily closed to any access, foot traffic or otherwise. 

So yes, the key issue is most certainly the specific transfer of federal property, property owned and accessible by ALL Americans, to the state of Utah. Where we don't have to look very far to see the precedent that has already been established for how they will be "managed". They will be sold, locked up, leased out, or otherwise taken from the American people. And no, we won't be compensated for those losses.

And yes, you do have to watch those lawyers, they can be pretty sharp


----------



## paddler

Good stuff in the Trib this morning on this issue.


----------



## Catherder

paddler said:


> Good stuff in the Trib this morning on this issue.


This one?

http://www.sltrib.com/home/4955606-155/stubborn-drill-baby-drill-rhetoric-philosophy-costs-all

The free market at work. 5 shows plus interbike would have generated a lot of revenue..................


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Catherder said:


> This one?
> 
> http://www.sltrib.com/home/4955606-155/stubborn-drill-baby-drill-rhetoric-philosophy-costs-all
> 
> The free market at work. 5 shows plus interbike would have generated a lot of revenue..................


Wow, that's even more sickening. One things for sure, whatever state gets them, will have a great economic impact front them. But hey, we gotta send resolutions on Bears Ears, cut apart GSENM and transfer public lands so we can sale them. One day Utahns will wisen up and stop voting for these short sighted polticians screwing them over right in front of them. This is an unwillingness to diversify our economy, and it's ridiculous not to embrace it. The issues surrounding Bears Ears aren't even that far apart between the state and monument designation with the way the state talks, if that's true drop the rhetoric and keep this show here.


----------



## paddler

Catherder said:


> This one?
> 
> http://www.sltrib.com/home/4955606-155/stubborn-drill-baby-drill-rhetoric-philosophy-costs-all
> 
> The free market at work. 5 shows plus interbike would have generated a lot of revenue..................


That's the link I posted yesterday. There was an editorial today:

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/4955043-155/editorial-the-world-is-not-so

And this:

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/4941787-155/op-ed-herberts-actions-on-public-lands

And this:

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/4957275-155/bagley-cartoon-utahs-worst-idea

I honestly think these politicians stay in their own echo chamber and think they're being totally reasonable. As pointed out above, the split in Utah voters is about 50/50, but the resolution sailed through our legislature. Strictly along party lines, of course.

Here is the Senate vote:

http://le.utah.gov/DynaBill/svotes.jsp?sessionid=2017GS&voteid=163&house=S

No Democrats voted "Yea", the only Republican to vote "Nay" was Brian Shiozawa from Cottonwood Heights.

Here's the House vote:

http://le.utah.gov/DynaBill/svotes.jsp?sessionid=2017GS&voteid=66&house=H

No democrats voted "Yea", one Republican, Bruce Cutler from Murray, voted "Nay".

So, contact your elected representatives. They are responsible for losing the OR convention, along with Herbert and our entire congressional delegation. Thanks, guys.


----------



## Lonetree

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Wow, that's even more sickening. One things for sure, whatever state gets them, will have a great economic impact front them. But hey, we gotta send resolutions on Bears Ears, cut apart GSENM and transfer public lands so we can sale them. One day Utahns will wisen up and stop voting for these short sighted polticians screwing them over right in front of them. This is an unwillingness to diversify our economy, and it's ridiculous not to embrace it. The issues surrounding Bears Ears aren't even that far apart between the state and monument designation with the way the state talks, if that's true drop the rhetoric and keep this show here.


Bigger picture: Ogden has been building an "Outdoor Industry" for over a decade at this point, as part of their revitalization efforts. We have brought in companies from all over the country(edit: and world), and other parts of the state.

Some of these companies have already left, and there is a larger block that is looking to do the same. Is it just "politics", NO! many of these people are Republicans, that was part of the reason they relocated here. And for some it will be part of the reason they leave. Some of these guys have been in business for 40 years on multiple continents, and they just shake their heads at Utah's "leadership".

And this is not just centered on Urban areas like Ogden and SLC. There are small imported(from other states)companies in this state that fully support 2-3 families, which in a place like SLC means nothing, but in communities of 10K-20K off the Front means something.

My wife has been trying to get me to move to Oregon for 20 years, and I have not even given it a thought as possible, until quite recently. This is not something that will happen tomorrow. Like other area businesses I am in the midst of a 5 year plan that gets more flexible as time goes on.

One business leaving does not mean anything, much like one abnormal deer. But when you start to see a trend, and larger numbers, it means something. From a business point of view, I have no reason to stay in Utah anyway, other than to build the bigger industry. And without that greater industry Utah has nothing to offer economically. I can tell you that there are several places on the West slope of CO(beautiful place) that are offering real estate and tax incentives that are pretty hard to beat if you are a smaller company with some mobility, able to offer employment. This has been building for some time now, and has some serious steam. They have grabbed some fairly large names out of CA, WA, and AK over the last few years.

Utah has no interest in free market solutions for anything, it really is just that simple.


----------



## Vanilla

Like I said pages ago---go to Oregon where they are much more public lands friendly. So much so they recently voted to sell off their oldest state forest to private parties. It's only ~83,000 acres, so no big deal. Stupid Utah! I can't believe you are the only state that doesn't get it... (sarcasm intended)


----------



## .45

This is way too political....in before the lock!


----------



## paddler

Vanilla said:


> Like I said pages ago---go to Oregon where they are much more public lands friendly. So much so they recently voted to sell off their oldest state forest to private parties. It's only ~83,000 acres, so no big deal. Stupid Utah! I can't believe you are the only state that doesn't get it... (sarcasm intended)


That argument is irrelevant. We're discussing Utah, not Oregon. Attempting to legitimize Utah's actions by equating them to what's going on elsewhere only muddies the water.

Do you agree with what our elected representatives are doing? I do agree with you that 83,000 acres is trivial compared to the 1.29 million acres of Bears Ears, plus the desired shrinking of the Grand Staircase. But it would be interesting to hear the full story about the sale in Oregon, perhaps there's more than what you're telling us?


----------



## Lonetree

Vanilla said:


> Like I said pages ago---go to Oregon where they are much more public lands friendly. So much so they recently voted to sell off their oldest state forest to private parties. It's only ~83,000 acres, so no big deal. Stupid Utah! I can't believe you are the only state that doesn't get it... (sarcasm intended)


The Elliot, while sad, is a completely different issue. That is on par with our SITLA lands. Almost every Western state, except Utah has rejected the transfer of federal lands to the state. Many on the very basis of fiscal concern alone. Those fiscal concerns were cited heavily as the reason for selling the Elliot, which is exactly what Utah would do if they had such real estate, which is the very problem with the concept of the transfer.


----------



## Lonetree

Oregon and Montana:

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=43248315&nid=157&title=oregon-montana-want-to-host-outdoor-retailer-show

That Bozeman syndicate is not something to be messed with, good folks.....


----------



## paddler

Lonetree said:


> The Elliot, while sad, is a completely different issue. That is on par with our SITLA lands. Almost every Western state, except Utah has rejected the transfer of federal lands to the state. Many on the very basis of fiscal concern alone. Those fiscal concerns were cited heavily as the reason for selling the Elliot, which is exactly what Utah would do if they had such real estate, which is the very problem with the concept of the transfer.


Yep, I did a little reading. Turns out the the Elliott State Forest was created as part of a gift of federal lands to the state. Established in 1930, part of the mandate was to manage the forests to provide money for schools, so logs for teachers. Revenue has fallen over the last several years as logging has decreased, so the state, required to support schools, has put it up for sale. It's been very controversial topic, and from what I see, is not a done deal.

Instead of using this case to argue that Oregon doesn't support public lands, it should serve as a cautionary example of what happens when federal lands are ceded to state control. And yes, it's very similar to our SITLA. And they recently sold a parcel that resulted in completely blocking public access to Comb Ridge:

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/4546018-155/op-ed-sitlas-comb-ridge-sale-leaves

Next case, Vanilla.


----------



## paddler

Lonetree said:


> The Elliot, while sad, is a completely different issue. That is on par with our SITLA lands. Almost every Western state, except Utah has rejected the transfer of federal lands to the state. Many on the very basis of fiscal concern alone. Those fiscal concerns were cited heavily as the reason for selling the Elliot, which is exactly what Utah would do if they had such real estate, which is the very problem with the concept of the transfer.





Lonetree said:


> Oregon and Montana:
> 
> http://www.ksl.com/?sid=43248315&nid=157&title=oregon-montana-want-to-host-outdoor-retailer-show
> 
> That Bozeman syndicate is not something to be messed with, good folks.....


The arrogance of our politicians is astounding. They've been kicking us in the teeth so long they thought we'd just continue to take it. Hopefully, this is their first taste of comeuppance, and they'll drink deeply from that cup in the future. Conservation and preservation will assume greater and greater importance as our world continues to shrink and man's impact continues to grow. We need vision, not greed, going forward.


----------



## Lonetree

paddler said:


> Yep, I did a little reading. Turns out the the Elliott State Forest was created as part of a gift of federal lands to the state. Established in 1930, part of the mandate was to manage the forests to provide money for schools, so logs for teachers. Revenue has fallen over the last several years as logging has decreased, so the state, required to support schools, has put it up for sale. It's been very controversial topic, and from what I see, is not a done deal.
> 
> Instead of using this case to argue that Oregon doesn't support public lands, it should serve as a cautionary example of what happens when federal lands are ceded to state control. And yes, it's very similar to our SITLA. And they recently sold a parcel that resulted in completely blocking public access to Comb Ridge:
> 
> http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/4546018-155/op-ed-sitlas-comb-ridge-sale-leaves
> 
> Next case, Vanilla.


Unfortunately the Elliott is probably a done deal. While many stay optimistic, those that have been working on the Elliott the longest and know it the best, will tell you it does not look good. Been a lot of folks buy pints to support that effort, but it currently feels like Sunday morning coming down.


----------



## Hoopermat

As a public land user I don't understand the hate of the OR expo. We as sportsman need public lands without them all of our activities will be atleast limited or go away all together. 
I don't want to see the west turned into the states east of the rocky's where it's a pay to play. 
We are always supporting the conservation groups that are with us the sportsman. But finally a group takes a stance the has real impact to the state. All the talks and threats that we can bring up with the groups like BHA,TRF, and other conservation groups are being ignored by the Utah politicians. Maybe taking real money from them it will open the eyes of them and the pubic to the real issues. 
So I will support the outdoor retailers because atleast they have the balls to take a stand. 

And I also ask this question again to the people that support the state on the issue. 
How is Utah having control of the public lands going to be better for sportsman?


----------



## Lonetree

Hoopermat, Some people are just trying to polarize this thing for political reasons. OR's fight, is one and the same for public lands, in solidarity with sportsmen. 

Just a little rumor I heard the other day: While a few small radicals here in Utah were stating their intent to boycott OR, Peter Metcalf of Black Diamond was penning an OpEd, as he does every year, threatening much the same. 

Meanwhile, behind the scenes the OIA was working to expand the OR show to 5 shows a year, because it is growing that fast. 

So Utah reacts as usual to Peter and others threats, and calls it a bluff. 

At around the same time there are a few guys on a hatch in Montana, or maybe it was somewhere in South America, I forget. Anyway, the fish were biting really good, and the conversation had turned to Utah, public lands, OR, etc. While we may never know what was said for sure, It was hard to hear with all the shouts of "fish on", we do know what followed after that epic fishing trip.

Retailers started to line up one after another to boycott the OR show. This left OIA(the people that put on the show) with no choice when they went into negotiations with the Governor and his people. Without the manufactures and retailers, there is no show.

It is very much real sportsmen behind this effort at every step of the way.


----------



## paddler

Lonetree said:


> Unfortunately the Elliott is probably a done deal. While many stay optimistic, those that have been working on the Elliott the longest and know it the best, will tell you it does not look good. Been a lot of folks buy pints to support that effort, but it currently feels like Sunday morning coming down.


You know what's interesting about the Comb Ridge sale? The buyer is Lyman Family Farms, which has made many SITLA purchases and have been very evasive as to their plans for those lands. And, the principal of Lyman Family Farms isn't named Lyman. His name is Joseph Hunt, in South Jordan, which is the location of Air Medical Resource Group. One of its subsidiaries, Eagle Air, was written up in the Trib awhile back in a story about air ambulance services. As there isn't a fixed rate schedule for these services, they can charge what they like. A few years ago they charged a patient $89,000(!) to fly him 268 miles from Blanding to SLC. Nice.:

http://www.sltrib.com/news/3871233-155/utahs-new-air-ambulance-companies-raise

Sounds a bit nefarious to me.


----------



## Lonetree

So how much would he charge to remove a gate, across a public road?


----------



## Lonetree

This should raise some hackles. Jim Dabakis is working on a plan to save the OR show. This should get interesting.

The first step is this petition: https://secure.everyaction.com/mzkN...bc1&emdi=dbd4ebb5-c9f7-e611-80c3-000d3a125bc1

I am more than willing to play along here, then I may have a better excuse for my wife as to why we are NOT going to be moving to Portlandia. I love to visit, but then I get to come HOME.


----------



## Lonetree

Update: Myself and others have been getting some direct conversation from the Governors office. There are two key myths that are being spread by the Governors office that need to be dispelled. The first being that The OR show may only leave for a season, and that Utah will get it back. The contracts are multiyear, not seasonal, and Utah is being pulled from RFP consideration, so they don't even get a chance to submit a proposal. 

Second, and this is the granddaddy of them all. The State thinks(or wants to give the impression) they are negotiating with the OIA, the people that put on the OR show. Nothing could be further from the truth. The OIA's decisions are being driven by a boycott of retailers and manufactures(economic participant drivers of OR), we hold the power here, not the OIA, and most certainly not the Governors office. When 40+ of your biggest and most influential clients pull out of your convention, you don't have a convention. You have no choice but to do what ever is in your power to preserve your show and business model. 

Call it politics if it helps you sleep at night, but this is the free market exercising our voice in support of public lands. 

"Corporations are people my friend"--Mitt Romney


----------



## stimmie78

#1DEER 1-I said:


> I find it ridiculous when people act like losing road access means they are locked out. It's a non-argument. You aren't locked out and they improve hunting and wildlife habitat IMO. I am for closing some roads, we aren't running out of them nor will we ever. You'll find out what locked out really is when a no trespassing sign meets you where a closed road used to. You'll be wishing for that closed road when the state can't pay its bills, is nearly bankrupt by a major wildfire and sales a prime chunk of land to compensate for their budget deficit. As for Bears Ears it can be taken back or left its all the same to me. Maybe future generations will simply enjoy it just because it's there. Wild places will become more valueable not less. Just like so many places that were controversial in their time they are now some of the most accepted and valued places anywhere. Not everywhere needs to justify its existence trough economics IMO, and places jest kept there to keep there is good in some instances.


I find it ridiculous when people think that only those that have the ability to hike or ride a horse into a place should have access. Losing roads IS restricting access. Are you saying that if someone isn't physically able to do something they shouldn't have access to do it, even if they had it in the past? I know you state that it's your opinion that closing a road improves habitat, but is it possible that keeping one open can improve habitat as well? Allowing the access that will allow more people to recreate and in turn spend money to help improve habitat? But then again, you want less people to go anywhere you go, so I can see why you want roads closed. I don't want the state to own all land. I don't trust them to do it. But I don't think that bureaucrats back east should be the ones making the decisions.


----------



## paddler

stimmie78 said:


> I find it ridiculous when people think that only those that have the ability to hike or ride a horse into a place should have access. Losing roads IS restricting access. Are you saying that if someone isn't physically able to do something they shouldn't have access to do it, even if they had it in the past? I know you state that it's your opinion that closing a road improves habitat, *but is it possible that keeping one open can improve habitat as well? Allowing the access that will allow more people to recreate and in turn spend money to help improve habitat?* But then again, you want less people to go anywhere you go, so I can see why you want roads closed. I don't want the state to own all land. I don't trust them to do it. But I don't think that bureaucrats back east should be the ones making the decisions.


That's a fair question, actually two questions. I'm unaware of examples of increasing road access to the general public improves habitat. Can you cite a couple? Also, it's unclear to me that allowing someone to drive on a dirt road leads to increased spending to improve habitat surrounding said dirt road. I think treading lightly works to preserve habitat.

But this straw man argument really falls apart when discussing the Bears Ears, as the management plan is not yet developed and development will include all stakeholders, not "bureaucrats back east".


----------



## wyoming2utah

stimmie78 said:


> Are you saying that if someone isn't physically able to do something they shouldn't have access to do it, even if they had it in the past?


I will....if doing so causes potential damage to fish and wildlife habitat. And, I can specifically think of some very real situations where access to certain areas has done serious damage to fish habitat that is potentially irreversible.

My hell, should we build an escalator up to the top of Mount Everest just so everybody can experience it? Do we need a road into every canyon and to the top of every mountain?


----------



## BPturkeys

We must be very very careful here that we do not lose sight of the big argument. This Bears Ears and Escalante Grand Staircase discussion is nothing more than a diversion by the local land grabbers to keep us off track while they capture the big prize...THE TRANSFER OF ALL PUBLIC LANDS INTO THE OWNERSHIP OF THE STATE OF UTAH! Don't think for one minute that this is not the real goal of these land grabbing, drill-baby-drill politicians. 

Remember, that if they get title to all the public land, which is their stated goal, whether Bear's Ears or EGSC are monuments or not will not matter a bit.


----------



## middlefork

Mr. Noel wants to buy the monument.
http://www.ksl.com/?sid=43297317&nid=148&title=lawmaker-utah-should-take-over-bears-ears-monument

I wonder how we will pay for it? Maybe they should "buy" all the public land if they want it so bad.


----------



## Daisy

Somewhat related: http://www.denverpost.com/2017/04/25/outdoor-recreation-industry-protect-public-lands/


----------



## Catherder

Daisy said:


> Somewhat related: http://www.denverpost.com/2017/04/25/outdoor-recreation-industry-protect-public-lands/


Can I "like" the article twice?

A few highlights of the article. (since we know nobody clicks on links;-) )

"With the news that the outdoor economy - defined by bike, snow, trail and water sports as well as camping, fishing, hunting, motorcycling, off-roading and wildlife viewing - *supports more than 7.6 million jobs and pays $124.5 billion in federal, state and local taxes*, the outdoor industry right now is circling its wagons in Washington D.C., hoping to champion the role of outdoor play in not just the health of Americans but the country's economy."

Yet in Utah, we continue to take a proverbial dump on this industry and the real jobs and wealth it brings by pursuing these land grab policies and promising jobs in extraction industries that have a strong likelihood of never materializing.


"There is a sense of urgency around keeping public lands public and making sure members of Congress preserve what is one of America's greatest heritages," said Amy Roberts, the Outdoor Industry Association's executive director on the day before her group's 25th annual Capitol Summit, which sees 130 outdoor industry leaders lobbying lawmakers to support recreation's use of Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management and National Park land. "*We definitely see public lands as the infrastructure of the industry the same way the highway system services transportation*.""

With this in mind, it makes perfect sense that the OR people handled the expo as they did and left.

Last month saw the formation of the first-ever outdoor recreation caucuses in both the U.S. House and Senate. The bipartisan efforts - led by Sens. Jim Risch (R-ID) and Martin Heinrich (D-NM) and Reps. Mike Simpson (R-ID) and Boulder Democrat Jared Polis - aim to preserve public lands and waters as the cornerstone of the outdoor recreation industry while supporting the growth of the industry's manufacturers, retailers and outfitters.

I wonder if any of Utah's elected officials are part of this caucus? 


"*The association's report shows outdoor recreation spending more than doubling since 2007*, when the first-ever recreation economy report counted $243 billion spent on recreational trips and $46 billion on outdoor products."

Yet Utah wants to instead mine coal on the GSENM, which has seen sharp declines in price and demand. 

"In the Intermountain West states of Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico, consumers spend $104.5 billion a year on outdoor recreation and support 925,000 jobs, generating $7.7 billion in federal taxes and $7.2 billion in state and local taxes."

Nuff said. Nothing frustrates me more about our political leadership than the continuing refusal to truly embrace the outdoor sector and pursue these destructive land grab schemes, with vague promises to the locals of jobs that are unlikely to ever materialize. It can only be avarice or stupidity, or both, that continues them on their path. :roll:


----------



## BPturkeys

...and yet, we blindly vote them back in office. Baa, baa, baa


----------



## wyoming2utah

Catherder said:


> Yet Utah wants to instead mine coal on the GSENM, which has seen sharp declines in price and demand.


The crazy thing about Utah's love for the mining industry and specifically coal and oil is the boom and bust nature of it. Why is Utah so opposed to the much more dependable and consistent tourism dollars out there and so willing to pursue gas, oil, and coal which isn't even a sustainable industry?


----------



## Vanilla

wyoming2utah said:


> The crazy thing about Utah's love for the mining industry and specifically coal and oil is the boom and bust nature of it. Why is Utah so opposed to the much more dependable and consistent tourism dollars out there and so willing to pursue gas, oil, and coal which isn't even a sustainable industry?


Because the tourism industry doesn't bribe the politicians the way the extraction industry does.

Did I say bribe? I meant contribute...


----------



## Catherder

wyoming2utah said:


> The crazy thing about Utah's love for the mining industry and specifically coal and oil is the boom and bust nature of it. Why is Utah so opposed to the much more dependable and consistent tourism dollars out there and so willing to pursue gas, oil, and coal which isn't even a sustainable industry?


Agreed, I've written a bunch about that on other threads. Another tidbit. One of Utah's plans to sell more coal was to buy a port in Oakland and ship the coal to China. It now looks like the Chinese aren't going to be such ready customers anymore.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/...ackage-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news


----------



## wyoming2utah

It also surprises me that despite Brigham Young's admonishing of early Mormon pioneers to avoid bringing in the mining industry that the mining industry has long been pushed by Mormons. And, though the transcontinental railroad likely led to the establishment of the mineral extraction industry in this state, it was Mormons who were leading the charge.

As a public educator, it also drives me crazy that Utah does not tax oil and gas companies at rates similar to other western states. In fact, “While North Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming all have effective oil and gas tax rates north of 10 percent, Utah’s effective oil and gas rate is 3.3 percent” and, by way of comparison, “Wyoming spends $15,897 per pupil on k-12 education” a number significantly higher than Utah in large part to the gas and oil industry (though the recent bust cycle is putting a hurt on their public education dollars). In other words, in Utah, we are practically begging these companies to come and mine by offering low tax rates and getting very little in return...unlike our western states counterparts.


----------



## Springville Shooter

All politics aside.....I'm working in Denver right now, and the Outdoor Retailers screwed the pooch. I get standing for what you believe in but they might as well have moved to Detroit. This place makes SLC seem like paradise. Hopefully they bring big pictures of the mountains and rivers cuz you sure as heck can't see them from Denver.-------SS


----------



## gdog

Go read the "comments" that people are posting up in response to this article :roll: Its really a small world for a lot of folks in UT.....

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=44381102&nid=148&title=outdoor-retailer-takes-show-to-denver


----------



## Bax*

All that'll happen is someone will create a similar event with a new name and people will forget about this whole fiasco.


----------



## Vanilla

I've said it before, I'll reiterate it here again. The Outdoor Retailer claim of leaving over Bears Ears is the most disingenuous thing I may have ever seen. They have been threatening to leave Utah for years over a myriad of issues that have absolutely nothing to do with public lands. Someone that supports OR's move to Denver should review Colorado's stream access laws for me...

OR can take their show and go home. I hope they choke on it. While I'm sad local businesses will be harmed by not having the shows here, the fact is, I'm not sad to see OR leave. They have tried to hold SLC hostage long enough for my liking.


----------



## gdog

Vanilla said:


> I've said it before, I'll reiterate it here again. The Outdoor Retailer claim of leaving over Bears Ears is the most disingenuous thing I may have ever seen. They have been threatening to leave Utah for years over a myriad of issues that have absolutely nothing to do with public lands.


First, they need no excuse for bidding out the show as they were only contracted through 2018. Second...."disingenuous"...seriously...have you read any of these companies missions statements and contributions to specific causes/foundations?

You think making a stand in regards to keeping lands public is not in their best interest with their core consumer "beliefs"? Yeah...most Patagonia clothes don't get too far from the local Starbucks, but who do you think the $$ for many of their supported foundations comes from... UT?? Why the hell would an outdoor gear/clothing company support and contribute to a state which is showing more and more anti-public ground support, which would directly impact their customer base activities in which they promote their products to?


----------



## OriginalOscar

CO 36% federal ownership - UT 67%. Is OR planning edibles auction to buy 31% of CO to equal UT federal public lands?

OR has 100's of asian manufacturers attend these shows. If OR & OIA wants credibility; drop manufacturing in San Juan County and other rural areas of the west and create economic growth for the locals including native americans.


----------



## Vanilla

Gdog, if you really think they made this decision based off Bears Ears, then you need a history lesson. I would bet if you did a google search, you'd see no less than 5 different times the convention has threatened SLC to leave for one reason or another, none of which have to do with public lands at all. 

They've been trying to figure out a way to leave for years. This just allowed them to do it while pointing the finger at someone else rather than taking the PR hit themselves. Disingenuous, yes. I'd say what they did fits the definition perfectly. I'm choosing to not completely ignore history by forming that opinion, I guess. 

And again, I hope Patagonia enjoys Colorado's super friendly stream access laws...


----------



## Catherder

Vanilla said:


> They've been trying to figure out a way to leave for years. This just allowed them to do it while pointing the finger at someone else rather than taking the PR hit themselves. Disingenuous, yes. I'd say what they did fits the definition perfectly. I'm choosing to not completely ignore history by forming that opinion, I guess.


We've talked about this ad nauseum, but while the above point is granted, from the legislatures public lands actions prior to departure, they basically gave the OR a boot in the arse and told them to take their sorry butts to Denver. Then, after they did so, they pathetically attempted 3 pitiful "last ditch efforts" (the guvs office, the legislature, and SL county) to talk them into coming back. Ridiculous.

One last thing, Springville Shooter is right. I lived on the Front Range of Colorado for 4 years. Ft. Collins was nice, but Denver has nothing on us living in the Wasatch front/back when it comes to outdoor recreation.


----------



## paddler

Vanilla said:


> Gdog, if you really think they made this decision based off Bears Ears, then you need a history lesson. I would bet if you did a google search, you'd see no less than 5 different times the convention has threatened SLC to leave for one reason or another, none of which have to do with public lands at all.
> 
> They've been trying to figure out a way to leave for years. This just allowed them to do it while pointing the finger at someone else rather than taking the PR hit themselves. Disingenuous, yes. I'd say what they did fits the definition perfectly. I'm choosing to not completely ignore history by forming that opinion, I guess.
> 
> And again, I hope Patagonia enjoys Colorado's super friendly stream access laws...


I've followed the OR story long term. Although my recollections may be a bit fuzzy, I don't remember any previous disagreements with the state that were not based on public land policy, conservation or environmental concerns. OR has been completely consistent in their Do Gooder mission. Utah's elected representative's abysmal behavior regarding Bears Ears was probably just the last straw. I disagree with the assertion that the move was at all disingenuous. I believe it is unfortunate for all involved, OR, the manufacturers, and Utah. I also believe OR was left with no reasonable alternative given the actions of our local political hacks.


----------



## Vanilla

I will give you a very reasonable alternative: keep the shows in the very best place in the world to hold them (SLC) and keep your voice and stay and fight the fight. By leaving, they make a statement: one nobody will listen to. Staying in SLC and continuing to fight the good fight is a reasonable alternative. A lucrative one for them too. 

I'm not sure what demanding a new hotel to go along with a convention center downtown has to do with public lands, but I'm all ears if you'd like to explain. (Just one example...) 

I'm not absolving our state leaders in this at all, but I'm certainly not going to give those anus holes at OR a free license to spit in our collective face like many here have either. Go back and do your homework. It's not hard to see the writing on the wall for this exodus, and it began a long time ago. Like I said, they picked their timing very well when they could do it with absolutely no bad PR. They lucked out, for sure.


----------



## paddler

Vanilla said:


> I will give you a very reasonable alternative: keep the shows in the very best place in the world to hold them (SLC) and keep your voice and stay and fight the fight. By leaving, they make a statement: one nobody will listen to. Staying in SLC and continuing to fight the good fight is a reasonable alternative. A lucrative one for them too.
> 
> I'm not sure what demanding a new hotel to go along with a convention center downtown has to do with public lands, but I'm all ears if you'd like to explain. (Just one example...)
> 
> I'm not absolving our state leaders in this at all, but I'm certainly not going to give those anus holes at OR a free license to spit in our collective face like many here have either. Go back and do your homework. It's not hard to see the writing on the wall for this exodus, and it began a long time ago. Like I said, they picked their timing very well when they could do it with absolutely no bad PR. They lucked out, for sure.


I suppose that's one way to look at it. I believe that the OR guys simply have seen enough, and the dishonest, or disingenuous, if you prefer, actions of our congressional leaders and local politicians regarding Bears Ears galvanized their membership into leaving the state. On every issue I can recall, our "leaders" have, without fail, taken the side of corporations, extraction industries, livestock grazers, etc, to the detriment of hunters, fishermen, outdoorsmen, enviromentalists, and tribal coalitions. There comes a time when one realizes that some things will never change, and you simply must take your business elsewhere. In this case, that time finally came for the OR when our leaders asked the arse hole in the White House to reduce or rescind the lawful designation of our monuments. I'd love to see them return in the future, but that would require massive changes in our local, state and national political representatives. Not sure I'll live long enough to see it.


----------



## Vanilla

Well, saying you agree with their decision and saying there was no reasonable alternative are two very different things. So which is it? Also, care to educate how that new ritzy hotel applies to public lands? 

Or are we just going to go round and round the merry-go-round with a moving target on the discussion, like usual?


----------



## paddler

Vanilla said:


> Well, saying you agree with their decision and saying there was no reasonable alternative are two very different things. So which is it? Also, care to educate how that new ritzy hotel applies to public lands?
> 
> Or are we just going to go round and round the merry-go-round with a moving target on the discussion, like usual?


I've said what I wanted to say. People can agree or disagree, no big thing. You can pursue your career as a hair splitter if you wish. I don't find such discussions productive, and have said so previously.


----------



## Vanilla

And one more moving target, and round and round we go!


----------



## TheoCleaner

Knowing the past issues of the manager of Sportsman, I no longer buy their products..


----------



## Daisy

*I guess it is now almost official....*

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/07/05/outdoor-retailer-trade-shows-denver-confirmed/


----------



## Catherder

Daisy said:


> http://www.denverpost.com/2017/07/05/outdoor-retailer-trade-shows-denver-confirmed/


Almost as bad as Hayward going to Boston. :roll:


----------



## Kwalk3

Catherder said:


> Almost as bad as Hayward going to Boston. :roll:


Too soon.....


----------



## OriginalOscar

Daisy said:


> http://www.denverpost.com/2017/07/05/outdoor-retailer-trade-shows-denver-confirmed/


CO 37% Public Land. Good call OIA. Good bye!


----------



## paddler

Catherder said:


> Almost as bad as Hayward going to Boston. :roll:


Worse. Hayward going to Boston is just entertainment. Public land issues are important.


----------



## Vanilla

OriginalOscar said:


> CO 37% Public Land. Good call OIA. Good bye!


About the same percentage of THC concentration in bud flower marijuana you can buy at the dispensaries these days. Coincidence?


----------



## paddler

"Twenty four hours in a day, 24 beers in a case. Coincidence? I think not." Attributed to Paul Newman, but he publicly denied it.


----------



## LostLouisianian

paddler said:


> "Twenty four hours in a day, 24 beers in a case. Coincidence? I think not." Attributed to Paul Newman, but he publicly denied it.


I miss Paul Newman, one of my favorite actors of all time.


----------



## fobit

Who has a list of outdoor retailers that are boycotting Utah? So I can avoid giving them MY business.


----------



## Vanilla

Patagonia really led the charge to get OIA to pull out of Utah. They will never see a dollar from me. Not that I bought a lot of their stuff anyway, but I did periodically look at their fishing gear as options. I won't even waste my time reviewing their products anymore, though.

I don't believe every company associated with OIA or the Outdoor Retailer Show was on board with trying to strong arm Utah *(again)* on this one. It's tough to know for sure which companies just went along for the ride and which were really pushing. But Patagonia was really pushing, that much is clear and documented.


----------



## middlefork

fobit said:


> Who has a list of outdoor retailers that are boycotting Utah? So I can avoid giving them MY business.


Here you go. Enjoy your journey.
http://or.a2zinc.net/Summer2017/Public/exhibitors.aspx?ID=11209

And Vanilla is right, I doubt all of them are "boycotting" Utah.


----------



## backcountry

fobit said:


> Who has a list of outdoor retailers that are boycotting Utah? So I can avoid giving them MY business.


Just the companies that threatened to leave Outdoor Retailer if they stayed in Utah? If so, back in Feb the primary companies were Patagonia, Arc'teryx, Peak Designs and Polar Tec. I would think Polar Tec would be the toughest to boycott as a consumer considering how their fabric is in the majority of high quality thermal garments (there are others but they have been the big player for decades).

Or do you want to boycott anyone that attends OR given it chose to leave Utah? If so, you are talking about the vast majority of well known outdoor gear manufacturers, from low end to high end. The Outdoor Industry Association, a trade association with a ton of pull on the move, represents more than 1200 companies alone. The OIA was one of the few reps in the final meeting with the governor that was the last straw.


----------



## Vanilla

backcountry said:


> The OIA was one of the few reps in the final meeting with the governor that was the last straw.


How could the "last straw" happen after they had already penned their announcement to leave before it even happened?

I guess the Gordon Hayward analogy fits well. Since he had already penned his long essay for the Player's Tribune when his agent was refuting the reports he was going to Boston by saying "he hasn't made a decision yet."

OIA had made up their mind before that meeting with the governor, and had a written press release out in the public through the media within mere minutes of the end of the meeting. Let's not pretend there was actual good faith going into that meeting. (Which was just a conference call, if I recall correctly? Or am I mistaken?)


----------



## backcountry

Whoa, cowboy. "Last straw" implies no blame to either party in my sentence. I just provided information to a question and provided context on who the broader players are in this drama. I haven't made any public statements about this issue, Vanilla, other than this, that I support people and companies acting on their convictions. If folks want to boycott OR or the original companies, go for it.


----------



## Vanilla

And I'm simply asking how the "last straw" could come after the decision was already made? Nothing more, nothing less. Let's not make it more than it is. I'm not implicating you or trying to show your feelings on the topic in any way, shape, or form. I don't know where you stand on the issue, nor is it important for the answer to my question. 

We all know the decision was made before the sham meeting with the governor took place. So I just want to ensure we are accurate in the discussion, regardless of what side one falls on the topic. That meeting was not the final straw. The decision was already made. That's all I'm saying.


----------



## paddler

"What we've got here is failure to communicate." In, _"Cool Hand Luke"_, 1967. Seems to happen regular in these parts.

Maybe Hayward and the OIA wrote statements up beforehand, anticipating different possible outcomes. From my understanding, the last meeting between OIA and Herbert didn't go well, and could well have triggered them to release a previously prepared statement. Just like people preprint shirts saying "World Champions" before game 7. Drafting a statement does not prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that a final decision has been reached. I'm not sure of the timeline, and have no inside information. Perhaps others can shed more light.


----------



## LostLouisianian

paddler said:


> "What we've got here is failure to communicate." In, _"Cool Hand Luke"_, 1967. Seems to happen regular in these parts.


And failure to communicate lead to ...... ????


----------



## paddler

LostLouisianian said:


> And failure to communicate lead to ...... ????


Thought you'd like that, LL. How about, "Nobody ever eat fifty eggs."?


----------



## LostLouisianian

paddler said:


> LostLouisianian said:
> 
> 
> 
> And failure to communicate lead to ...... ????
> 
> 
> 
> Thought you'd like that, LL. How about, "Nobody ever eat fifty eggs."?
Click to expand...

I can't hardly watch that part without getting queasy.


----------



## Vanilla

Did you guys just become best friends?


----------



## paddler

Well, I do enjoy me some gumbo. Even grew okra in my garden a couple of years. Goose gumbo is tasty.:grin:


----------



## OriginalOscar

fobit said:


> Who has a list of outdoor retailers that are boycotting Utah? So I can avoid giving them MY business.


Here is the Utah haters. 


> OIA was joined on the call by the leadership of Patagonia, The North Face, REI and Outdoor Retailer.


https://outdoorindustry.org/article...c-lands-protections-utahs-recreation-economy/


----------



## paddler

I won't be boycotting any retailers on that list. I've been an REI member since 1974, so 43 years. I think I may still have the first tent I ever bought from them. They have always promoted conservation, treading lightly, etc, and I appreciate that. Let me see, OIA and the environment vs the anti-public lands stance of Utah's politicos? Easy choice.


----------



## Critter

The folks over in Denver are giddy over them moving the shows to Denver and out of Utah. There were news reports of it over the last couple of days


----------



## LostLouisianian

Vanilla said:


> Did you guys just become best friends?


Nah cuz he hates republicans. 

He just doesn't know that I'm an independent and a lot of my family is democrats back in Looziana but don't tell him that.


----------



## LostLouisianian

Critter said:


> The folks over in Denver are giddy over them moving the shows to Denver and out of Utah. There were news reports of it over the last couple of days


Of course, they can get tons of people stoned and thy'll buy tons of overpriced crap without even knowing what they just did.


----------



## paddler

LostLouisianian said:


> Nah cuz he hates republicans.
> 
> He just doesn't know that I'm an independent and a lot of my family is democrats back in Looziana but don't tell him that.


Now, now, I don't think I ever said I hate Republicans. I disagree with most of their agenda, and don't see how anybody can support Trump, but hate isn't a word I use often.


----------



## Critter

LostLouisianian said:


> Of course, they can get tons of people stoned and thy'll buy tons of overpriced crap without even knowing what they just did.


If you want to invest some money just open up a munchies stand just outside of the convention center in downtown Denver.


----------



## Vanilla

Critter said:


> If you want to invest some money just open up a munchies stand just outside of the convention center in downtown Denver.


Be stocked to the brim with Funyuns. You'll do okay.


----------



## Springville Shooter

Adios 45mil OR show. Hello 85+mil Amazon. Funny how that works. Utah is too crowded and has too many service oriented low paying jobs as far as I'm concerned. So I'm not one who's cited as lamenting in the news. 

Jokes on them. Anything nice in CO is on the west slope. Denver might as well be Kansas City or any other mid-western flat land metropolis where any and all 'open' space has long ago been converted into agricultural.

While they could have stayed and continued to assist those who share their same views in the fight, they chose to abandon ALL Utahns.------SS


----------



## Vanilla

Amen Shooter. Amen!


----------



## backcountry

Springville Shooter said:


> Adios 45mil OR show. Hello 85+mil Amazon. Funny how that works. Utah is too crowded and has too many service oriented low paying jobs as far as I'm concerned.


Not sure why you would be happy about Amazon arriving then. The vast majority of those jobs will be warehouse workers who will only make around $24,000k. Considering that is only $1k above federal poverty than I think that clearly falls into the low paying job category.

The $45 million cited isn't just income. Much of that revenue is money spent across the entire area by attendees that not only benefits local business but also our tax coffers. It was reliable money for years that will not be as easy to replace.

I don't expect anyone to change their mind from this but the details are once again more complex than the rhetoric.


----------



## Springville Shooter

backcountry said:


> Not sure why you would be happy about Amazon arriving then. The vast majority of those jobs will be warehouse workers who will only make around $24,000k. Considering that is only $1k above federal poverty than I think that clearly falls into the low paying job category.
> 
> The $45 million cited isn't just income. Much of that revenue is money spent across the entire area by attendees that not only benefits local business but also our tax coffers. It was reliable money for years that will not be as easy to replace.
> 
> I don't expect anyone to change their mind from this but the details are once again more complex than the rhetoric.


All the attributes that you cite in regards to the OR would apply to Amazon as well. I never said I was happy, just making the point that business cycles in and out all the time, making the financial aspect of the OR boycott meaningless. The much better option would have been for them to stay and act as a strengthening agent for the large number of Utahns who share their stance on public lands. Utahns who have been very loyal and supportive to them and probably will remain so regardless of the lack of reciprocation.

Tucking tail and running is not nearly as noble as staying and fighting, especially when there is still a LOT of fight left. At this point, pretty much all issues regarding the monument and public lands transfer are still up in the air. This is the time when differences can be made.

To me, the OR looks a lot like all the celebrities who claim that they are leaving the US when a candidate that they don't like gets elected. Hardly worth an eye roll.

Once again, I couldn't care less. I feel that Utah is growing at a rate that is simply unsustainable. I'm afraid that we are trying to cram far too many people into the 35% of this state that isn't controlled by the federal government.----SS


----------



## Vanilla

backcountry, you're right. Especially considering the rhetoric from OIA and the OR show. 

The whole premise of this thread and some others was to congratulate and cheer that OR was leaving. My whole premise was cheering them leaving instead of staying to fight like SS talked about is insane. My other premise is that OR has not been genuine in their public comments. They've been threatening to leave Utah over one issue or another for longer than the public lands or monument issues ever arose. Like I've asked before, what does the ritzy new hotel they threatened to leave over have to do with public lands? Go to Colorado where they have SUPER friendly public access laws for fishermen... (not) 

I wish the OR Show stayed. I didn't want them to leave, and I certainly won't cheer their disingenuous BS about why they had to leave. This gave them an opportunity to leave without a PR nightmare. It's what they've been looking for here for years. Unfortunately, Utah's elected leadership opened that door for them. We all lose something because both sides sucked. 

But now that the decision is made and they're going, I say good riddance. Denver can't compete for quality in anything with SLC. They'll discover that pretty quickly, and they can revel in their 2nd rate (probably more like 4th or 5th rate) location and curse Utah all the way. Denver is a freaking hole now. I hope they enjoy it. 

We'll be just fine here.


----------



## paddler

Of course, the opposite view is that the OR group had a long history of disagreement with many of Utah's decisions regarding public lands, has voiced them repeatedly, and finally got fed up with the lip service provided by our local politicians. And, that the Bears Ears stance by Herbert, our congressional delegation, et al, was the final straw. 

Deciding who was disingenuous is debatable. The question of who supports public lands and conservation is not. Nor is the fact that the OR show leaving is embarrassing to the state of Utah, a black eye, well-deserved, I might add, for our elected representatives, and one which will hurt the local economy. Elections have consequences, and there is no reason to think our representatives will change their attitudes on these issues.


----------



## backcountry

Vanilla said:


> backcountry, you're right. Especially considering the rhetoric from OIA and the OR show.
> 
> The whole premise of this thread and some others was to congratulate and cheer that OR was leaving. My whole premise was cheering them leaving instead of staying to fight like SS talked about is insane. My other premise is that OR has not been genuine in their public comments. They've been threatening to leave Utah over one issue or another for longer than the public lands or monument issues ever arose. Like I've asked before, what does the ritzy new hotel they threatened to leave over have to do with public lands? Go to Colorado where they have SUPER friendly public access laws for fishermen... (not)
> 
> I wish the OR Show stayed. I didn't want them to leave, and I certainly won't cheer their disingenuous BS about why they had to leave. This gave them an opportunity to leave without a PR nightmare. It's what they've been looking for here for years. Unfortunately, Utah's elected leadership opened that door for them. We all lose something because both sides sucked.
> 
> But now that the decision is made and they're going, I say good riddance. Denver can't compete for quality in anything with SLC. They'll discover that pretty quickly, and they can revel in their 2nd rate (probably more like 4th or 5th rate) location and curse Utah all the way. Denver is a freaking hole now. I hope they enjoy it.
> 
> We'll be just fine here.


Clearly the logic of economic harm has implications for both OR and the state. Both have some responsibility. That said, ultimately the state is responsible to its citizens while OR is principally beholden to its businesses (ie the 1200 companies that make up OIA). I only have indirect influence on OIA compared to direct influence on state government.

I support Paddler's analysis of motive and the problem of assuming OR is disingenuous. I have worked on mission statements and program development and to assume OIA and specific companies don't act in good faith to their statements about public policy lacks the robust evidence such a charge requires. You seem focused on OR's past negotiations about hotels, etc. That is how big deals are struck between government and organizations. You can leverage your base (like hunter stakeholder groups) or you can leverage your monetary influence. But its some seriously flawed and black and white thinking to assume OR can't be both strategic with negotiating real logistical needs and capable of genuinely caring for public policy. You have presented no evidence to back up such a wild claim.

Per Denver. I lived there for a decade and the notion it is second rate to SLC is odd. Yeah, ski slopes are another half hour further on weekdays but Denver/Front Range has plenty of outdoor opportunity that has no problem keeping pace with SLC. The climbing in places like Eldorado Canyon easily compare to Wasatch canyons in quality and quantity, plus a rich history. The # of front range outdoor stores is staggering. There are two whitewater parks within a half hour of downtown and plenty of rivers. Climbing gyms galore. High quality mountain biking all over the place. And to be honest, SLC can't hold a torch to the bar, microbrewery, and general night life scene were much of any conference and convention is often done. It seems like people forget this was a business insiders event (purchasing and PR) not a consumer convention . Clearly trying gear was key but much of that is done at the booths for the vast majority of buyers/businesses.

I understand disagreeing with organizations that don't behave according to individual expectations but the notion that a major industry association like OIA and the owners of OR aren't acting genuinely and consistent with their values and mission is far off the mark. And the idea that they would choose a city that didn't fully meet their logistical needs ignores the thoughtfulness it takes to successfully represent 1200 paying members and help grow their economy so rapidly. Colorado and OR are a smart match, even if CO stream law sucks (PS, even with half as much public land the state of CO has amazing trout waters that are plenty accessible that could fill a lifetime of exploration).


----------



## backcountry

When did public discourse become so hyper-partisan (not just politically)? Somewhat of a rhetorical question but I find in unfortunate and telling for our country that this country's thinking became so tribal. 

I mean, I disagree with our state government but that hasn't led me to assume they are idiots or disingenuous in this matter. I call my liberal friends out on that all the time just like i challenge some of the anti-OR comments here. 

In a situation like this why is it so hard to recognize all of the grey and that it might just be two powerful groups rightfully separating because of sincere differences? Both used what resources they had to leverage the outcomes they wanted or were willing to compromise on. Sadly, there wasn't a compromise they could agree on. That doesn't inherently make them immature, childish or malicious. Successful adults and businesses part ways all of the time. And there is a reason these bids only last 5-10 years as business needs and a state's sometimes don't have a mutually beneficial compromise.

Tribalism has benefits but the negatives seem to really damage public discourse, even amongst a group of hunters who theoretically have alot in common.


----------



## Vanilla

backcountry said:


> When did public discourse become so hyper-partisan (not just politically)? Somewhat of a rhetorical question but I find in unfortunate and telling for our country that this country's thinking became so tribal.
> 
> .....
> 
> Tribalism has benefits but the negatives seem to really damage public discourse, even amongst a group of hunters who theoretically have alot in common.


Care to tell me which tribe I am a part of so I can act accordingly? It seems you've already got placed in a nice little box.

There are 20 pages on this thread, we've already hashed this out. I blame both parties, have from the beginning, and feel both sides acted disingenuously. The evidence to support that notion for OIA is there. You can separate the years of negotiations and threats that had nothing to do with public lands and completely ignore them in saying there is no evidence if you'd like. It doesn't make you right. You can say I'm being partisan, but when I oppose both sides in the issue, it's tough to claim partisanship.

You are right in that there are two sides here that couldn't come together to see eye to eye. There are a lot of different reasons for that. One of which is neither side was acting in good faith at the bargaining table. And because of that, people in Utah lose out.


----------



## OriginalOscar

backcountry said:


> Not sure why you would be happy about Amazon arriving then. The vast majority of those jobs will be warehouse workers who will only make around $24,000k. Considering that is only $1k above federal poverty than I think that clearly falls into the low paying job category.


$13/hr x 2080 hours per year = $27,040 wages + insurance + 401k + PTO
https://www.glassdoor.com/Hourly-Pay/Amazon-Warehouse-Associate-Hourly-Pay-E6036_D_KO7,26.htm

Compare this with seasonal tourism jobs which OIA - OR crowds feels everyone in Utah should embrace.

Ya ever notice REI and Patagonia use foreign manufacturers? Your next $500 Patagonia jacket will be sewn in Vietnam by someone making $10 per day, shipped to Utah and someone making $13/hr at Amazon will ship to you, all profits will go to Ventura CA. I think Navajo's would like manufacturing jobs if Patagonia really gave a s#4t about rural America.


----------



## backcountry

Vanilla said:


> Care to tell me which tribe I am a part of so I can act accordingly? It seems you've already got placed in a nice little box.
> 
> There are 20 pages on this thread, we've already hashed this out. I blame both parties, have from the beginning, and feel both sides acted disingenuously. The evidence to support that notion for OIA is there. You can separate the years of negotiations and threats that had nothing to do with public lands and completely ignore them in saying there is no evidence if you'd like. It doesn't make you right. You can say I'm being partisan, but when I oppose both sides in the issue, it's tough to claim partisanship.
> 
> You are right in that there are two sides here that couldn't come together to see eye to eye. There are a lot of different reasons for that. One of which is neither side was acting in good faith at the bargaining table. And because of that, people in Utah lose out.


Vanilla,

I was vague for a reason, as I believe the bigger issue is group dynamics, not individuals. I am not aware of a place in which I lumped you into a box in this thread. I have taken a risk and openly apologized when I make mistakes on this forum and I am willing to do so again if you can show me where I did so.

I do challenge your statement that you have been against both sides from the beginning. Go back to your first post in this thread and see how clearly it was anti-OR. There was no reference to the state government. That has been the character of the vast majority of your comments throughout our exchange as well:

http://utahwildlife.net/forum/21-gr...tailers-leave-utah-disgust-6.html#post1788194

Not only is the post solely anti-OR but you actually admitted you didn't have evidence to support the conclusion that they had ulterior motives. Start there and read all the way to end of the thread. Can you still the claim that you haven't taken a partisan stand on the issue? Yeah, you throw a few jabs at the state on occasion but not nearly as often or with the same amount of vitriol or animosity.

Imagine if members on this forum judged you as disingenuous or an anus hole (another judgement you made about OR) because of the inconsistency linked above? Because that seems to be how these tit-for-tat conversations escalate. We seem to face these hyper-partisan dead ends when the character of people are judged, instead of ideas or actions being critiqued, solely because of their differing worldviews. When statements like "If you can't see that, you're wrong. Period" become the norm there isn't much chance to learn or change (another criticism you lobbed at OR).

Best of luck, Vanilla. Sorry people you know were affected by the loss of the show. And no harm, no foul if we end up continuing to disagree.


----------



## backcountry

OriginalOscar said:


> $13/hr x 2080 hours per year = $27,040 wages + insurance + 401k + PTO
> https://www.glassdoor.com/Hourly-Pay/Amazon-Warehouse-Associate-Hourly-Pay-E6036_D_KO7,26.htm
> 
> Compare this with seasonal tourism jobs which OIA - OR crowds feels everyone in Utah should embrace.
> 
> Ya ever notice REI and Patagonia use foreign manufacturers? Your next $500 Patagonia jacket will be sewn in Vietnam by someone making $10 per day, shipped to Utah and someone making $13/hr at Amazon will ship to you, all profits will go to Ventura CA. I think Navajo's would like manufacturing jobs if Patagonia really gave a s#4t about rural America.


My comment was just a response to what I saw as inconsistent in SS's comment (hence my use of the quote function). I am neither for or against the Amazon facility.

Having worked in the outdoor recreation industry I can fully attest to the economic difficulties is poses as a career. There are plenty of issues with developing such a strong reliance on service industry jobs. I will say, the outdoor recreation #s are compromised of alot of non-seasonal jobs though. It directly influences manufacturing, hotels, airports, restaurants and the like. The #s groups like OIA and the state cite fully recognize how interconnected tourism is with other industries and careers. And to be honest, with the success of the national parks marketing Utah has done the last few years many of our tourist destinations operate close to year round.

I also agree on manufacturing and have criticisms of Patagonia. That said, several of my friends have tried manufacturing items that use textiles stateside only to have their customers demand prices that can only be found with manufacturing out of the country. Its another complex issue outside the scope of this thread.


----------



## Vanilla

Vanilla said:


> Stay with us, help us fight. Don't take your party to another table that will be a bigger financial benefit to you, and then say you're doing it for public land purposes in your press release.


Backcountry, I went back to my first post as you suggested. This is my last two sentences, or in other words, my conclusory thought.

Stay with who? "Us." Help who fight? Us! Now, you're obviously a very intelligent person. When one uses the word "us," is that including one's self? Obviously a rhetorical question. So, while my post is critical of OR, my plea was for them to stick with US in this fight. Yes, that includes me. What fight are we talking about here? Who would we be fighting and what are we fighting for?

My position on public lands and how I feel about what elected officials in Utah have done has been nothing but absolutely consistent. If you assert otherwise, you're being dishonest. In fact, not only do I post on Internet forums to the 8 people that actually read this thread, I've spent hundreds upon hundreds of hours actually fighting this fight on their home turf! I've put my money (and time) where my mouth is on this issue for many years on this issue. You can find dozens of threads on UWN where my position against how our elected officials handle public land and access issues is absolutely clear. And it's been 100% consistent.

This thread was not a thread with a bunch of people congratulating the governor and legislature for their part in this, so attacking them and their motives was not relevant to the discussion. If you must know, I think many of them are even more dishonest and disingenuous in their comments than OIA was in theirs on this issue. But that doesn't absolve your people in OIA. And as I said in my first post, no---I will not be congratulating their move. As I've said now probably at least 5 times on this thread, and SPringville Shooter recently said when he revived it---I think they should have stayed and faught with *US*. Yes, me included. But they got their way. And I can't do anything about it, so they can have the arm pit of the west that Denver has become.


----------



## backcountry

Vanilla said:


> Backcountry, I went back to my first post as you suggested. This is my last two sentences, or in other words, my conclusory thought.
> 
> Stay with who? "Us." Help who fight? Us! Now, you're obviously a very intelligent person. When one uses the word "us," is that including one's self? Obviously a rhetorical question. So, while my post is critical of OR, my plea was for them to stick with US in this fight. Yes, that includes me. What fight are we talking about here? Who would we be fighting and what are we fighting for?


You know your explanation just proved my point and principle concern, right? You just described an "us versus them mentality", aka the type of tribalism I am highlighting (also look at your Denver comments, its like a old sports rivalry). Plus, while I will comfortable admit we share similar goals/values, the "us" you use is a rhetorical tool that tries to create conformity. I am not part of the us you share because I don't share the view that we Utahns are victims of a "disingenuous" business deal. I don't necessarily see them outside of Us or our group. I don't agree that they abandoned us or the public lands issue. Do I think it's the best strategy? Maybe not but I am not beholden to the 1200 members they represent. I don't think any of this is as black and white as you are claiming. The only firm conclusion I have is that they clearly used one of the many tools available to them. No good or bad, no right or wrong.



Vanilla said:


> My position on public lands and how I feel about what elected officials in Utah have done has been nothing but absolutely consistent. If you assert otherwise, you're being dishonest.


I did not assert that nor did I even bring up land management in my comments. Its only relevant because you make assertions about OR's authenticity and integrity in regards to their rationale to leave Utah. If I used your approach I would make assumptions about your commitment to public lands and your integrity solely because I disagree with the ideas and the way you state them here. But I don't go that way because I have been taught about that logical fallacy and I have seen how much harm it can cause.



Vanilla said:


> This thread was not a thread with a bunch of people congratulating the governor and legislature for their part in this, so attacking them and their motives was not relevant to the discussion. If you must know, I think many of them are even more dishonest and disingenuous in their comments than OIA was in theirs on this issue. But that doesn't absolve your people in OIA. And as I said in my first post, no---I will not be congratulating their move.


Am I part of your "us" or them, ie my people in the OIA? Its no shock that I am stickler for consistency.

I never made judgement about who you should support or boycott. Bringing that up is a red herring. It is the tone and strategy employed that I critique. This exchange started because you took offense to my use of the phrase "last straw" and your rigid interpretation of the OR meltdown in Utah. This started because when I then went and reread the thread it became clear that, in your own words, folks are simply "wrong" if we don't interpret OR's history the same way as you.

It seems clear that you value your style of interacting. So be it. But if (not when, I can't predict the future) someday you find you keep reaching ideological dead ends than I recommend evaluating how easily you judge others in these situations. Maybe instead of assuming those who disagree are so clearly wrong, disingenuous or anus holes you can listen to see that there are plenty of people who behave differently than you want but are doing so with integrity, genuineness and have no ulterior motive. Then again, your current strategy could continue to serve you just fine.


----------



## Vanilla

Hey pot this is kettle, and...

Obviously bashing OR struck a nerve for you. You've completely misrepresented my statements. No reason to discuss anything. One member here likes to talk about the straw man, well, you knocked it put of the park. 

There is nothing I've said that isn't supported for anyone willing to look. And it was never "if you don't agree with me, you're wrong." You need to go back and retry this. Good luck, backcountry. I won't judge you the way you've judged me. I guess the tribal "us versus them" you describe is alive and well. Just not in the way you think...

*This has literally turned into one of the silliest pizzing matches I've been a part of, so I'll be done until someone wants to actually get back on the topic at hand.


----------



## backcountry

Vanilla said:


> Hey pot this is kettle, and...
> 
> Obviously bashing OR struck a nerve for you. You've completely misrepresented my statements. No reason to discuss anything. One member here likes to talk about the straw man, well, you knocked it put of the park.
> 
> There is nothing I've said that isn't supported for anyone willing to look. And it was never "if you don't agree with me, you're wrong." You need to go back and retry this. Good luck, backcountry. I won't judge you the way you've judged me. I guess the tribal "us versus them" you describe is alive and well. Just not in the way you think...
> 
> *This has literally turned into one of the silliest pizzing matches I've been a part of, so I'll be done until someone wants to actually get back on the topic at hand.


Once again, if you can show me where I misrepresented your statement I will retract and apologize. Also, please show me where I judged you instead of your statements and their tone here. I think I made my resistance to that type of ad hominem clear when you were advocating for me to do so against Paddler in the Brian Head Fire thread. Or can you provide am example of a strawman, as I also clearly care about logical fallacies.

To the notion that "you never" claimed folks were wrong if they disagreed with you...here is your exact quote:



Vanilla said:


> Neither side operated in good faith on this. If you can't see that, you're wrong. Period.


And no nerve hit, that's just an assumption on your part. Don't currently know anyone in OIA or OR nor do I have any vested interest in them. As my interactions with other's show, I have plenty of criticisms and concerns with their rhetoric. In fact, my first contribution to this thread was to provide the names of companies to boycott to someone who disagreed with their move.


----------



## LostLouisianian

Are these the same group of people who back years ago had their show in big tents across the street from the Triad Center downtown?


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> Once again, if you can show me where I misrepresented your statement I will retract and apologize. Also, please show me where I judged you instead of your statements and their tone here. I think I made my resistance to that type of ad hominem clear when you were advocating for me to do so against Paddler in the Brian Head Fire thread. Or can you provide am example of a strawman, as I also clearly care about logical fallacies.
> 
> To the notion that "you never" claimed folks were wrong if they disagreed with you...here is your exact quote:
> 
> And no nerve hit, that's just an assumption on your part. Don't currently know anyone in OIA or OR nor do I have any vested interest in them. As my interactions with other's show, I have plenty of criticisms and concerns with their rhetoric. In fact, my first contribution to this thread was to provide the names of companies to boycott to someone who disagreed with their move.


BC, you are now seeing the things I object to in V's posts. His assertion that he never makes unsupported statements is demonstrably false, as exemplified by his accusing OIA of acting in bad faith and being disingenuous based on the timing of their press release after their last conversation with Herbert. I pointed out the error in his logic at the time, but he must have missed it. It would be far better, IMO, if we all merely stated our positions clearly and honestly. Much less confusing that way, and much more productive.


----------



## OriginalOscar

Listen to the call. I'll state OIA and OR acted in bad faith. https://www.snewsnet.com/news/audio-listen-to-the-call-between-oia-and-utah-gov-gary-herbert


----------



## backcountry

I listened to it all and assume you did as well. I would ask you to give examples from that recorded call that meet the definition of bad faith. Expecting others on the forum to find that evidence in a 55 minute conversation isn't exactly appropriate (ie you are expected to justify your argument). It would help to have a time reference to your evidence to be verified as its pretty easy to over generalize exacts statements in tense negotiations like this.


----------



## paddler

OriginalOscar said:


> Listen to the call. I'll state OIA and OR acted in bad faith. https://www.snewsnet.com/news/audio-listen-to-the-call-between-oia-and-utah-gov-gary-herbert


I don't have the time to listen to the entire call. The question of whether or not the OIA or OR acted in bad faith is a judgement call, and therefore subject to an individual's biases. I read the synopsis, and it seems the two sides reached an impasse. Given the positions of our legislature, governor and congressional delegation, I find it hard to fault the OIA. In effect, they said that enough is enough. I think it's important for our local politicians to understand that words matter, rhetoric matters. I strongly support Bears Ears as is, and am pretty disgusted with what I see as the shortsightedness of our elected officials.


----------



## Vanilla

This audio takes us back to the original comment made that revived this thread in the first place. Backcountry said the phone call with industry leaders was the last straw. I responded it was not and that the decision to leave was made prior to that phone call, and the OIA and OR folk were not operating in good faith on this. The audio shows that this was exactly the case. 

I believe that anyone that listens objectively to this audio will acknowledge that the decision to take the OR Show out of Utah was made prior to this conference call, and there was nothing the governor could do in that phone call that would change it. Before we went down 35 different rabbit holes, that was my original statement, nothing more, nothing less. 

Now, we can disagree and view entirely subjectively the decision itself made by OR to take the show from Utah, and I'm totally fine with that. I won't agree with you and believe they should have stayed, but reasonable minds can disagree on such things. But to say that no evidence has been provided to show that the phone call with the governor was a sham (IE- OR and OIA did not make a good faith effort to keep the show in Utah), simply isn't true. A good amount of evidence has been shown both before and after this thread was revived. The trade show was leaving Utah before that phone call, and the claim that the decision had not yet been made by OIA and OR is false. 

Sorry backcountry, you can come at me and continue to vilify my position or how I post my position or anything else. None of that matters to me or anyone else on this forum. But I think if you acknowledge your own bias here, because there is one, and objectively listen to that call, we can go back to our original interaction here and you will see that what I was saying is not so off the wall as you've tried to show for the last few days. In fact, what I said that the decision was already made is factually true, not just one person's opinion. 




On a side note, that was my first time listening to the audio. I didn't even know audio existed publicly. It's funny, I actually kind of believe the governor when he said he was willing to try and work out a solution. Now, I don't believe for one second that the state legislature would have done anything and he likely would have been stonewalled. They are a whole different animal, and one I do not trust. But for the first time in years, I actually believed the governor was willing to listen and try to work something out on this issue. Maybe I don't dislike his position on public lands as much as I thought I did? Learn something new every day...


*Edit - Everyone really should listen to this audio. It's actually a pretty good listen, and helps to see where each side is coming from pretty well. Decide for yourself how to feel about it.


----------



## backcountry

Until you can show me the fact it is just opinion. You don't get to just claim a fact without laying out the evidence.

I definitely have bias, we all do. But my bias doesn't matter when all I am doing is holding you to the basic standard of providing evidence to support a judgement/claim. You layer your comments with assumption after assumption with little to no evidence. You could be right in your judgement but you have failed to do anything persuasive beyond making your very strong personal belief clear over and over again.


----------



## backcountry

Per last straw comment:

Definition:the last straw, the final irritation or problem that stretches one's endurance or patience beyond the limit

Important clarity, its the "final" irritation or problem, not the first or most important. Its an idiom that highlights this issue well actually given the decades long tension between Utah and OR.

I would support my use of the phrase with this evidence:

At minute 54 , after being given the expectation to "lead" in the issue, Herbert ultimately states "I can't do that" and "I can't compel them" and if you "are giving me an Ultimatum on the phone then I guess we are going to have to part ways". The call quickly ends after that statement. No blame or responsibility but the Govenor draws a clear line in his willingness after a pretty clear and consistent demand for action on BENM. After making a demand and being told he "can't do that" the final straw broke the camels back and the contract for the OR was pulled from the table.

You counter with the claim that "there was nothing the governor could do in that phone call that would change it". That is false and ignores the historical role of the executive, state or federal. They explicitly used the word "leader (or leadership)" in their final statement because one of the principal roles of the executive is symbolic leadership that can directly and indirectly facilitate agendas and platforms. Herbert was right that he already signed the legislatures action and there is a process to rescind. But the executive CAN compel the state legislature and does all the time. But it takes a willingness to expend political capital and an investment in the goal. Ultimately, Herbert was unwilling to do that and meet the OR demand which ended the negotiation. 

That happens in negotiations all of the time. There is no blame to either party but it was by definition the "final irritation or problem" that ended further negotiations.

At this point I have satisfied the definition by showing evidence for both the word "final" and exposing the problem. 

Feel free to provide evidence to support your claim or refute mine. Not just accusations and rhetorical flare.


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> Per last straw comment:
> 
> Definition:the last straw, the final irritation or problem that stretches one's endurance or patience beyond the limit
> 
> Important clarity, its the "final" irritation or problem, not the first or most important. Its an idiom that highlights this issue well actually given the decades long tension between Utah and OR.
> 
> I would support my use of the phrase with this evidence:
> 
> At minute 54 , after being given the expectation to "lead" in the issue, Herbert ultimately states "I can't do that" and "I can't compel them" and if you "are giving me an Ultimatum on the phone then I guess we are going to have to part ways". The call quickly ends after that statement. No blame or responsibility but the Govenor draws a clear line in his willingness after a pretty clear and consistent demand for action on BENM. After making a demand and being told he "can't do that" the final straw broke the camels back and the contract for the OR was pulled from the table.
> 
> You counter with the claim that "there was nothing the governor could do in that phone call that would change it". That is false and ignores the historical role of the executive, state or federal. They explicitly used the word "leader (or leadership)" in their final statement because one of the principal roles of the executive is symbolic leadership that can directly and indirectly facilitate agendas and platforms. Herbert was right that he already signed the legislatures action and there is a process to rescind. But the executive CAN compel the state legislature and does all the time. But it takes a willingness to expend political capital and an investment in the goal. Ultimately, Herbert was unwilling to do that and meet the OR demand which ended the negotiation.
> 
> That happens in negotiations all of the time. There is no blame to either party but it was by definition the "final irritation or problem" that ended further negotiations.
> 
> At this point I have satisfied the definition by showing evidence for both the word "final" and exposing the problem.
> 
> Feel free to provide evidence to support your claim or refute mine. Not just accusations and rhetorical flare.


This is a very solid post. People are free to express their opinions, but if they represent their assertions as fact, they must provide supporting evidence. V did not. OIA requested Herbert take the lead in protecting Bears Ears, he said he could not. Actually, as the chief executive of our state, it was within his power to do so. What he really meant was that he would not. As I said above, an impasse. I completely disagree that OIA acted in bad faith, and actually think their chosen path was a long time coming.

An example of an actual fact is that our Republican elected officials have a long history of resisting protecting public lands and have favored the interests of extractive industry over the interests of sportsmen. The public record is replete with examples, their repudiation of BENM is just the latest. Continuing to support these officials, therefore, is against the best interests of sportsmen. Insanity is repeating the same actions over and over and expecting, or hoping against hope for a different result.


----------



## OriginalOscar

Vanilla said:


> On a side note, that was my first time listening to the audio. I didn't even know audio existed publicly. It's funny, I actually kind of believe the governor when he said he was willing to try and work out a solution. Now, I don't believe for one second that the state legislature would have done anything and he likely would have been stonewalled. They are a whole different animal, and one I do not trust. But for the first time in years, I actually believed the governor was willing to listen and try to work something out on this issue. Maybe I don't dislike his position on public lands as much as I thought I did? Learn something new every day...
> 
> *Edit - Everyone really should listen to this audio. It's actually a pretty good listen, and helps to see where each side is coming from pretty well. Decide for yourself how to feel about it.


Very impressed with how governor Herbert handled that call and absolute position taken by OIA and OR. He made a profound statement along the lines that as governor he would not issue proclamations without involving local people.


----------



## backcountry

I actually thought Herber facilitated the conversation well. That is no easy job.


----------



## paddler

*Last Call*

The OR Show comes to town this week for the last time, at least for five years, maybe forever. On Thursday, many attendees will march to the Capitol to celebrate public lands. Seems a fitting farewell to our blockhead, small-minded, short-sighted, "Drill, Baby, Drill" politicians.


----------



## gdog

Backcountry Hunters & Anglers sent an email invite for members to come and join the march to the Capital as well.


----------



## Kwalk3

gdog said:


> Backcountry Hunters & Anglers sent an email invite for members to come and join the march to the Capital as well.


I think it's important for sportsmen to have a good showing and let the legislators know it's not just the OIA folks that are willing to march for public lands. Sadly, I'll be driving cross country and won't be there myself. Kinda bummed about it.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## OriginalOscar

gdog said:


> Backcountry Hunters & Anglers sent an email invite for members to come and join the march to the Capital as well.


Great way to gain legitimacy. I guess they aren't a bunch of green decoys!

Anyone care to share the email? PM me


----------



## paddler

OriginalOscar said:


> Great way to gain legitimacy. I guess they aren't a bunch of green decoys!
> 
> Anyone care to share the email? PM me


They'll certainly have more credibility than Herbert, et al? You going, OO? I'll be fishing Kokes, o/w it would be fun. Too bad our congressmen won't be there to receive their well-deserved one finger salute.


----------



## gdog

OriginalOscar said:


> Great way to gain legitimacy. I guess they aren't a bunch of green decoys!
> 
> Anyone care to share the email? PM me


This should help you out... Back Country Hunters & Anglers :O||:


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

OriginalOscar said:


> Great way to gain legitimacy. I guess they aren't a bunch of green decoys!
> 
> Anyone care to share the email? PM me


It is a good thing to do. Thanks for getting more involved in the state BHA.


----------



## OriginalOscar

#1DEER 1-I said:


> It is a good thing to do. Thanks for getting more involved in the state BHA.


sar·casm (särˌkazəm) noun - the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.

Exactly how many on the ground projects or acres has BHA protected or opened? Having another Pint Night or joining the Utah Hating Do Gooders at OR isn't my idea of positive action.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

OriginalOscar said:


> sar·casm (särˌkazəm) noun - the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.
> 
> Exactly how many on the ground projects or acres has BHA protected or opened? Having another Pint Night or joining the Utah Hating Do Gooders at OR isn't my idea of positive action.


I sensed your sarcasm, I just figured no reason to even try to reason with someone who already has their mind made up. It's ridiculous to think that the best thing we could do on this public lands issue is isolate ourselves away from other public land users in this fight. In fact, being far outnumbered by these do-gooders you speak of, it would be the stupidest thing we could do going forward. If sportsmen aren't willing to reach out to other groups and broaden their horizons, prepare to get screwed over the next few decades because people such as yourself would rather isolate than embrace moving forward with people despite what disagreements we may have with them in other aspects of the outdoors. I also think you far misunderstand what BHAs main mission is, and they are not a traditional habitat organization. They are committed to access and sustained public ownership of public lands as well as protection of wildlife habitat and backcountry, not so much by habitat projects as much as other groups but by getting more involved on the front lines of policy making, which is where and why sportsmen continually get screwed. Because like you, too many sportsmen don't understand that you can put all the money into habitat you want, but policy makers in state legislatures and congress will have the final say if you get to ever benefit from it. Oh and those do-gooders that outnumber sportsmen 10 to 1, better see a willingness from us to engage as a productive outdoor collective group because when they are voting for representatives, ballot initiates, or voicing opinions on policy, we want them on our side. But go ahead stick your head in the sand. Using the term "green decoy", is about as fast of a discredit to yourself as you could throw out.


----------



## paddler

OriginalOscar said:


> sar·casm (särˌkazəm) noun - the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.
> 
> Exactly how many on the ground projects or acres has BHA protected or opened? Having another Pint Night or joining the Utah Hating Do Gooders at OR isn't my idea of positive action.


You were being sarcastic, OO? Really? You've always come off as sincere, genuine, earnest even.



#1DEER 1-I said:


> I sensed your sarcasm, I just figured no reason to even try to reason with someone who already has their mind made up. It's ridiculous to think that the best thing we could do on this public lands issue is isolate ourselves away from other public land users in this fight. In fact, being far outnumbered by these do-gooders you speak of, it would be the stupidest thing we could do going forward. If sportsmen aren't willing to reach out to other groups and broaden their horizons, prepare to get screwed over the next few decades because people such as yourself would rather isolate than embrace moving forward with people despite what disagreements we may have with them in other aspects of the outdoors. I also think you far misunderstand what BHAs main mission is, and they are not a traditional habitat organization. They are committed to access and sustained public ownership of public lands as well as protection of wildlife habitat and backcountry, not so much by habitat projects as much as other groups but by getting more involved on the front lines of policy making, which is where and why sportsmen continually get screwed. Because like you, too many sportsmen don't understand that you can put all the money into habitat you want, but policy makers in state legislatures and congress will have the final say if you get to ever benefit from it. Oh and those do-gooders that outnumber sportsmen 10 to 1, better see a willingness from us to engage as a productive outdoor collective group because when they are voting for representatives, ballot initiates, or voicing opinions on policy, we want them on our side. But go ahead stick your head in the sand. Using the term "green decoy", is about as fast of a discredit to yourself as you could throw out.


1-I, I wouldn't waste much effort on OO. He's beyond rehabilitation. Part of the problem, the way I see it. It's okay, of course, if you want to keep trying. But a hopeless endeavor, like trying to educate Trump supporters. Will not happen.


----------



## Springville Shooter

like trying to educate Trump supporters. Will not happen.[/QUOTE]

Remember......not everyone can be an athlete but anyone can be an athletic supporter.

Not everyone can be a Trump but anyone can be a Trump supporter.|-O-|---SS


----------



## wyogoob

I was driving up Echo Canyon this afternoon. I seen a train and then a wreck. It reminded me of this thread.

.


----------



## Springville Shooter

wyogoob said:


> I was driving up Echo Canyon this afternoon. I seen a train and then a wreck. It reminded me of this thread.
> 
> .


 Hey, at least you got top-of-the-page out of the deal.:rockon:------SS


----------



## wyogoob

Springville Shooter said:


> Hey, at least you got top-of-the-page out of the deal.:rockon:------SS


Reeaallly?

I didn't notice. 

.


----------



## OriginalOscar

At least you should post the march invite - https://www.facebook.com/events/1405482566183283/

484 signed up. Not bad for 30,000 OR attendees. Almost 2%

#CO37percentpublic


----------



## paddler

wyogoob said:


> I was driving up Echo Canyon this afternoon. I seen a train and then a wreck. It reminded me of this thread.


I like this thread. Lots of good-natured discussion.


----------



## wyogoob

paddler said:


> I like this thread. Lots of good-natured discussion.


yeah, me too

.


----------



## Vanilla

#1DEER 1-I said:


> If sportsmen aren't willing to reach out to other groups and broaden their horizons, prepare to get screwed over the next few decades because people such as yourself would rather isolate than embrace moving forward with people despite what disagreements we may have with them in other aspects of the outdoors.


Are you talking about OO or OR with this comment? Because I couldn't really tell. But I digress...

So I was up at Jordanelle yesterday. There were signs around at the state park saying the public use area was closed Tuesday 7/25 for an Outdoor Retailer exhibit, or something to that effect. I was saddened that public property in Utah was being shut off to the public to accommodate a group that completely turned its back on Utahns in the name of public access. Seemed ironic, but mostly just made me mad that our state parks allowed it to happen. Oh well, I got my fun in yesterday. Too bad for those that are hoping to go up there today and get turned away.


----------



## Finnegan

#1DEER 1-I said:


> If sportsmen aren't willing to reach out to other groups and broaden their horizons, prepare to get screwed over the next few decades...


Absolutely. And sportsmen aren't willing.



#1DEER 1-I said:


> I also think you far misunderstand what BHAs main mission is, and they are not a traditional habitat organization. They are committed to access and sustained public ownership of public lands as well as protection of wildlife habitat and backcountry, ...


That's what they say and I once bought into it, but their actions in Utah don't square with that mission statement. Like you said, sportsmen aren't willing to reach out to other groups and broaden their horizons. BHA is no different, really.

That being the case, OR leaving Salt Lake will finally satisfy the many retailers who never wanted the conventions to be in SLC anyway. But aside from that, it will have no positive effect or influence at all.


----------



## gdog

Finnegan said:


> Absolutely. And sportsmen aren't willing.
> 
> That's what they say and I once bought into it, but their actions in Utah don't square with that mission statement.
> 
> In what way?
> 
> ....many retailers who never wanted the conventions to be in SLC anyway. But aside from that, it will have no positive effect or influence at all.


Which retailers didn't want it and why? How did it negatively impact their business?


----------



## Finnegan

gdog said:


> In what way?


I can just as well ask, in what way has BHA influenced anything in Utah? Ever?

But you were first...

I respect what BHA is trying to do and I acknowledge that they're in uncharted waters. I have nothing but high regard for the members of BHA. (Okay, Land Tawny is a dork, but he's a good dork.) But...

Fact is, Utah citizens have given BHA numerous opportunities to walk their talk. Never once has BHA been willing to do that.



gdog said:


> Which retailers didn't want it and why? How did it negatively impact their business?


We're talking about a convention venue, yes? Individual businesses are another topic. I mean, nobody ever dealt with (or boycotted) a business because that business attended a convention at any particular venue.

I'm not a retailer, but I've attended portions of the last few conventions. Top complaints on the list include alcohol, transportation and inversion, smog. Whatever. But of course, other venues have been courting OR all along. If you or me was attending a convention, would either of us vote for Salt Lake City?


----------



## gdog

Finnegan said:


> I can just as well ask, in what way has BHA influenced anything in Utah? Ever?
> 
> But you were first...
> 
> I respect what BHA is trying to do and I acknowledge that they're in uncharted waters. I have nothing but high regard for the members of BHA. (Okay, Land Tawny is a dork, but he's a good dork.) But...
> 
> Fact is, Utah citizens have given BHA numerous opportunities to walk their talk. Never once has BHA been willing to do that.
> 
> We're talking about a convention venue, yes? Individual businesses are another topic. I mean, nobody ever dealt with (or boycotted) a business because that business attended a convention at any particular venue.
> 
> I'm not a retailer, but I've attended portions of the last few conventions. Top complaints on the list include alcohol, transportation and inversion, smog. Whatever. But of course, other venues have been courting OR all along. If you or me was attending a convention, would either of us vote for Salt Lake City?


You stated BHA "their actions in Utah don't square with that mission statement" and I asked why you stated that? Seriously, I'd like to hear specifics. I like what the group stands for, but if they aren't walking the walk...I'd like to know what I'm missing. I can't comment on what/if they have done specifically here in UT as of this point, which has made an impact (yet)...I don't know(?)

In regards to retailers not wanting it here. I misread your post. I thought you were talking specifically about retailers in SLC who didn't want it here.


----------



## Finnegan

gdog said:


> In what way?


I can just as well ask, in what way has BHA influenced anything in Utah? Ever?

But you were first...

I respect what BHA is trying to do and I acknowledge that they're in uncharted waters. I have nothing but high regard for the members of BHA. (Okay, Land Tawny is a dork, but he's a good dork.) But...

Fact is, Utah citizens have given BHA numerous opportunities to walk their talk. Never once has BHA been willing to do that.



gdog said:


> Which retailers didn't want it and why? How did it negatively impact their business?


We're talking about a convention venue, yes? Individual businesses are another topic. I mean, nobody ever dealt with (or boycotted) a business because that business attended a convention at any particular venue.

I'm not a retailer, but I've attended portions of the last few conventions. Top complaints on the list include alcohol, transportation and inversion, smog. Whatever. But of course, other venues have been courting OR all along. If you or me was attending a convention, would either of us vote for Salt Lake City?


----------



## OriginalOscar

Never saw what BHA has done in Utah. Protested Chaffetz townhall; check, gonna march tomorrow with Utah Hating Do Gooder element with OR; check. 

Any access gained, funds donated to worthy cause, or tangible benefit?

For the record the BHA members I've met are nice people. Just don't see relevance beyond protest and messaging.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

OriginalOscar said:


> Never saw what BHA has done in Utah. Protested Chaffetz townhall; check, gonna march tomorrow with Utah Hating Do Gooder element with OR; check.
> 
> Any access gained, funds donated to worthy cause, or tangible benefit?
> 
> For the record the BHA members I've met are nice people. Just don't see relevance beyond protest and messaging.


You obviously cannot comprehend the point and guided efforts of BHA. Again BHA IS NOT A TRADITIONAL HABITAT ORGANIZATION.


----------



## High Desert Elk

Going back to the start with the first few posts, NM would love for all of UT's outdoor retailers to relocate here...


----------



## gdog

High Desert Elk said:


> NM would love for all of UT's outdoor retailers to relocate here...


Perfect timing...we are going to need a ton of manpower for the huge uptick in the coal industry thats headed our way any time now....plus the hoards of MLM juice and oil conventions fighting over space at the Salt Palace...oh yeah..this is gonna be good!


----------



## Vanilla

A couple interesting notes from the Tribune today:

1- The majority of Utahns believe Bears Ears is too big; and 2- A few companies are now talking about how the price of attending the OR Show will increase in Denver due to the fees mandated by law there. 

Candidly, I don't fully understand the second part, other than some smaller companies are questioning how long they'll be able to afford to go. 

Not that Patagonia or North Face give two craps about any of those little guys.


----------



## gdog

Vanilla said:


> A couple interesting notes from the Tribune today:
> 
> 1- The majority of Utahns believe Bears Ears is too big; and 2- A few companies are now talking about how the price of attending the OR Show will increase in Denver due to the fees mandated by law there.
> 
> Candidly, I don't fully understand the second part, other than some smaller companies are questioning how long they'll be able to afford to go.
> 
> Not that Patagonia or North Face give two craps about any of those little guys.


The margin of error on the poll is more then the spread for/against, which really surprised me that the spread wasn't greater. From the article, "The new poll found men, active Mormons, Republicans and older voters were more likely to say Bears Ears is too big.". From this alone and Utah's political/religious population %'s...you think it would have been +60% in favor of removing or shrinking BE's, but thats not the case.


----------



## Vanilla

I do have to correct my statement that the 'majority' say Bears Ears is too big. It was a plurality, but in my world, plurality still prevails.

But back to OR---I found this Trib article interesting as well: http://www.sltrib.com/news/5558915-155/utah-retailers-bummed-out-to

_"It seems like they've been looking for an excuse [to leave Salt Lake City]," said Austin Moyes, national sales manager for Logan-based Aquamira Technologies, which produces filtered hydration packs and water bottles. "To say that Utah is not an outdoor-friendly state is bogus."_

Not surprising to me, since that is what I've been saying for months. Now, just those on the inside are saying the same thing. Some of the other quotes raised an eyebrow as well. When those in the industry are questioning the motives, that says a lot.


----------



## middlefork

There is no doubt that the bigger, more vocal companies can influence where a convention is held to the sometimes detriment of the little guys.

And there is no doubt that for every reason to stay in SLC there are other compelling reasons to move to another venue.

There have been calls since the first show to move it somewhere else. Can't get a drink, not enough restaurants or rooms. Not enough taxi's you name it. SLC and Utah was nice enough to try to improve the venue to keep them here. But don't think for a minute that there wasn't a very vocal contingent of Colorado based companies lobbying for Denver when they left Las Vegas.

And yes I'm still waiting for the anouncement of 30 mini conventions that are going to fill the venue for the two weeks that OR vacated.

The position of the State legislators and Congressional delegation put all arguments against leaving in the who gives a crap side of the ledger.

So now I guess OO will have to go to Denver to woo all those companies to start production in San Juan county instead of SLC. I'm sure the gas won't be much more.


----------



## OriginalOscar

#1DEER 1-I said:


> You obviously cannot comprehend the point and guided efforts of BHA. Again BHA IS NOT A TRADITIONAL HABITAT ORGANIZATION.


Yeah you've said that a couple times. Do you want to answer or just avoid the question?

Anybody attend the march?


----------



## gdog

OriginalOscar said:


> Yeah you've said that a couple times. Do you want to answer or just avoid the question?
> 
> Anybody attend the march?


Stand in line...I'm waiting for Finnegan to lay out the details...


----------



## gdog

---I found this Trib article interesting as well: http://www.sltrib.com/news/5558915-1... "_"These issues came up with Gov. [Mike] Leavitt, and he managed to negotiate this well enough to keep the show here, and keep both sides working together," Belcourt (Blue Ice SLC UT) said. "It seems like Herbert blew it. &#8230; If anybody has the obligation to bring all sides together, it's the governor. I was expecting him to be able to work it out with the industry_

Lots of opinions on this one....


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

OriginalOscar said:


> Yeah you've said that a couple times. Do you want to answer or just avoid the question?
> 
> Anybody attend the march?


Not wasting my time OO. You'll never learn, what you don't want to know. BHA is a great group that beginning to get off the ground in Utah and making a big difference nationally (hunt: Utah is part of the naion). Again thanks BHA.


----------



## paddler

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Not wasting my time OO. You'll never learn, what you don't want to know. BHA is a great group that beginning to get off the ground in Utah and making a big difference nationally (hunt: Utah is part of the naion). Again thanks BHA.


Now you're catching on. Our politicians were speaking with forked tongue. It finally caught up to them. That's the story in a nutshell. OO is a lost cause. Next case.


----------



## Vanilla

Hey 1-I,

Have you seen BHA's "stream access report"? They are about as fond of the public's ability to access water in the new home of the OR Show as I am. 

But I digress...


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Vanilla said:


> Hey 1-I,
> 
> Have you seen BHA's "stream access report"? They are about as fond of the public's ability to access water in the new home of the OR Show as I am.
> 
> But I digress...


From everything I've seen BHA is a strong proponent of stream access. The Utah chapter of BHA had a blip years back on this issue but have since came out in strong support of stream access. I've seen nothing on their stream access that I disagree with.


----------



## Vanilla

I think you may have missed the point.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Vanilla said:


> I think you may have missed the point.


Oh okay, sorry I misunderstood it, I see what you're saying now. I get what you're saying, and yes maybe OR was looking for and had other reasons to leave, but I can agree with them where I can agree with them, and many Utahns and businesses will miss OR coming to Utah every year. I agree Colorado has some issues pertaining to public access as well, but Utah takes the cake as far as pushing for transfer and sale. That, among other Utah religion laws, is why many events will never come here, and shows like OR will leave.


----------



## Vanilla

#1DEER 1-I said:


> That, among other Utah *religion* laws, is why many events will never come here, and shows like OR will leave.


Now we are starting to get somewhere!


----------



## backcountry

Vanilla said:


> #1DEER 1-I said:
> 
> 
> 
> That, among other Utah *religion* laws, is why many events will never come here, and shows like OR will leave.
> 
> 
> 
> Now we are starting to get somewhere!
Click to expand...

Do you really think the primary concern like the state government's aggressive policy regarding federal land is mutually exclusive of logistical concerns like archaic liquor laws, hotel space, etc? Do you apply that same logic to hunters? Can we only vote for candidates based upon one issue? Clearly voters and massive organizations like OIA have to constantly make decisions based upon a myriad of factors.

And we recognize you find the OR move to CO problematic because of their stream access laws. CO trespass laws are definitely less friendly than UT which affects fisherman. We agree there. But clearly OIA found the actions of Utah in regards to federal land more important than the long battle over state law and river access.


----------



## paddler

Vanilla said:


> Now we are starting to get somewhere!


I don't think religion per se played a role in their leaving. However, many Mormons here in Utah believe one cannot be a be a good Mormon and a Democrat. So they vote straight R without a second thought. Consequently, our politicians are overwhelmingly Republican, and Mormon. So, we get funny liquor laws and far right policies on public lands, etc. It's the policies that our politicians espouse that OR objects to, not their religious affiliation. Frankly, our Congressional delegation, governor, etc, support extreme policies with which even their constituents disagree. It will be this way for the foreseeable future, which is why the OR left. No real hope for meaningful change anytime soon.


----------



## gdog

5...


----------



## Dunkem

paddler said:


> I don't think religion per se played a role in their leaving. However, many Mormons here in Utah believe one cannot be a be a good Mormon and a Democrat. So they vote straight R without a second thought. Consequently, our politicians are overwhelmingly Republican, and Mormon. So, we get funny liquor laws and far right policies on public lands, etc. It's the policies that our politicians espouse that OR objects to, not their religious affiliation. Frankly, our Congressional delegation, governor, etc, support extreme policies with which even their constituents disagree. It will be this way for the foreseeable future, which is why the OR left. No real hope for meaningful change anytime soon.


 Hmmm:mod:


----------



## backcountry

At the end of the day, OR has left the building. Some hunters and anglers will no longer patronize the primary players in the breakdown. Some hunters and anglers support the OR's value-based reason for leaving and will continue to patronize such organizations. And there are those who don't really care one way or another, like myself, and will continue to buy Patagonia and other products when they are on sale because they have lasted me years and functioned better than most competitors. I will also continue to buy AquaMira, because after 20 years of backpacking I really dislike pumps, even if I disagree with their statements in the newspaper. At the end of the day, I will buy products that serve me in the backcountry as long as the manufacturer doesn't take a a direct (or sometimes indirect) action to compromise my outdoor endeavors. Others will have different boundaries.

Utah lost millions of dollars in revenue and taxes but its nearly impossible to predict how that will truly affect the state and what others sources are likely to counter-balance the loss of OR. I doubt many of the physical store locations of manufacturers that threatened to boycott will pick and move.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Vanilla said:


> Now we are starting to get somewhere!


I believe Utahs public land policy and attacks played a big role in it as well, but yes, with every decision any of us make there are several factors that push us a certain direction. If I was choosing between Colorado and Utah to hold a large event like this I'd choose Colorado too. There's a red bubble, and blue bubble, that never agree on things and then....there's the Utah bubble, that everyone else just scratches their head and chuckles at.


----------



## Vanilla

If the "Utah bubble" helps create a state that consistently is ranked at the top for best managed states, with very low crime rates, affordable cost of living, low unemployment rates, high economic development, and unmatched and diverse outdoor opportunities and beauty, then I will take the "Utah bubble" any day. I'm beginning to think that some whiners seriously take for granted how good they have it here in Utah.

And just because these types of nuggets are very entertaining for me, I'll just post this here without comment:

http://www.sltrib.com/news/5555043-155/utah-officials-urge-blm-to-rethink


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Vanilla said:


> If the "Utah bubble" helps create a state that consistently is ranked at the top for best managed states, with very low crime rates, affordable cost of living, low unemployment rates, high economic development, and unmatched and diverse outdoor opportunities and beauty, then I will take the "Utah bubble" any day. I'm beginning to think that some whiners seriously take for granted how good they have it here in Utah.
> 
> And just because these types of nuggets are very entertaining for me, I'll just post this here without comment:
> 
> http://www.sltrib.com/news/5555043-155/utah-officials-urge-blm-to-rethink


The specifics of those statistics should be taken into account. The culture of Utah is good, I won't argue that, some of the laws and closeness of the church and state goes far beyond what it should and has far to much influence on some things, that hold the state back from being even stronger and more successful. I'm not going to go too far down this path because quality of life in Utah is good, some of the laws and policies in Utah are not.


----------



## paddler

I'll comment. From the article:

_The area west and south of Dinosaur is subject of a proposed "master leasing plan," initiated by the BLM during *President Barack Obama's *tenure in the White House.

Previously the agency declined to lease within several of these areas, but under *new pro-energy leadership*, the BLM is now moving forward on leases without the benefit of finalized master lease plans.

Energy industry trade groups applaud the move because they see those leasing plans as unnecessary impediment to development._

The "new pro-energy" leadership is the Trump administration at work. So, Herbert and local leaders agree with President Obama's policies. Something like "Drill, Baby, Drill. But NIMBY".


----------



## Vanilla

Ha! He just can't help himself, no matter how crazy it looks.


----------



## High Desert Elk

Dunkem said:


> Hmmm:mod:


Let me throw this out there - since NM's economy is "tanking" we would love to have the OR show locate to Abq and many retailers and manufacturers follow it!


----------



## OriginalOscar

#1DEER 1-I said:


> The specifics of those statistics should be taken into account. The culture of Utah is good, I won't argue that, some of the laws and closeness of the church and state goes far beyond what it should and has far to much influence on some things, that hold the state back from being even stronger and more successful. I'm not going to go too far down this path because quality of life in Utah is good, some of the laws and policies in Utah are not.


Contrarian. It's good, but not good; oh wait good.

Don't be confused. Utah is very good!


----------



## Finnegan

gdog said:


> Stand in line...I'm waiting for Finnegan to lay out the details...


You mean examples of BHA not walking their talk?

I served 2 years as BHA Utah state co-chair before I resigned in frustration. After 2 years of volunteering my time and money, I can't really say that I accomplished anything.

BHA had an opportunity to take a leading role in the designation of the Central Wasatch National Conservation and Recreation Area. While BHA says they're all about habitat and public access, the national board refused to support this vital conservation effort because they didn't want to be associated with the environmental orgs who support the designation.

BHA had an opportunity to back Utah Diné Bikéyah and refused to do so. They never explained why.

BHA had an opportunity to lend considerable financial support to the USAC. But you won't find BHA on the USAC sponsor list.

Coming back to the thread, BHA loves to lobby. But they repeatedly refused to lobby in Utah despite the fact that our state is "ground zero" for the public lands transfer movement. They'll come to Utah to sell beer, raise money and recruit members, but not to get directly involved in the fight.

But to be fair, most Utahns won't get involved, either. Many won't even bother to vote.


----------



## Vanilla

Interesting, to say the least.


----------



## OriginalOscar

Finnegan said:


> Coming back to the thread, BHA loves to lobby. But they repeatedly refused to lobby in Utah despite the fact that our state is "ground zero" for the public lands transfer movement. They'll come to Utah to sell beer, raise money and recruit members, but not to get directly involved in the fight.


So it's what I thought. Tag along with protests but don't sit at the adult table.


----------



## gdog

Finnegan...thanks for the examples of your personal experiences with BHA. Thats the type of feedback I was exactly looking for. Good to hear from both sides of the fence in regards to a groups actual workings, compared to mission statements posted on a website. I tend to take both with a grain of salt. I don't believe any of these sportsmanship groups are perfect by any means, but I believe the collective efforts can make a difference in the overall scheme of things. The odds are weighted against us as hunters, so we need all the help we can get, perfect or not.


----------

