# Fake News



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Some will remember my disdain for Patagonia when OR pulled out of Utah. This picture is a screen shot of their front page to their website. 

This could not be further from the truth. Not a single acre of public lands have been taken by President Trump in these actions. But I guess the truth was never important to Patagonia on this issue. So why would they stop their disingenuous, if not blatantly dishonest statements now?


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

While I share your sentiment, lets be sure and keep this within the confines of the rules to not get political any more than we have to. 
REI sent out a similar email to essentially everyone they have ever had correspondence with.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

I know of a kid working for the BLM in BE and many of them were glad for the announcement as the budget did not ever increase to do anything that should be done on a monument vs standard BLM ground. Maybe these lame duck announcements dont come with any funding???
More info on them
https://www.forbes.com/sites/angela...-patagonia-plans-to-sue-trump-yvon-chouinard/
I guess they are really upset that their own bought and paid for Sally Jewell scored this one for them and just like the one lame duck signature that got it there it is gone. What makes me chuckle is those upset now are upset that these huge oil companies may make some money and rape our land...I guess they aren't aware of the reclamation requirements for them, you would never even know they were there. I've hunted a few places and you would never know they were there if not for a little post similar to a corner marker. All along they are providing really well paying jobs and leave no mark. Now, their billionaire corporations want their way while providing jobs only around minimum wage bringing way more traffic and the related pollution. 
The real loser in all of this is the budget, these groups will just continue to sue and tie this up in court on such a small change, the most sensitive areas are all still in monuments. Just like the FS never able to manage anything as these enviro whacko groups just sue and sue keeping them unable to manage in the way they see fit. We saw this in the Brianhead fire this summer, the cooks would rather burn down whole towns vs seeing any tree stumps out there. Who knows? Maybe the insurance companies will start suing them and see how they like turning the tables for the losses that they created there...Rant over


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Huge29 said:


> I know of a kid working for the BLM in BE and many of them were glad for the announcement as the budget did not ever increase to do anything that should be done on a monument vs standard BLM ground. Maybe these lame duck announcements dont come with any funding???
> More info on them
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/angela...-patagonia-plans-to-sue-trump-yvon-chouinard/
> I guess they are really upset that their own bought and paid for Sally Jewell scored this one for them and just like the one lame duck signature that got it there it is gone. What makes me chuckle is those upset now are upset that these huge oil companies may make some money and rape our land...I guess they aren't aware of the reclamation requirements for them, you would never even know they were there. I've hunted a few places and you would never know they were there if not for a little post similar to a corner marker. All along they are providing really well paying jobs and leave no mark. Now, their billionaire corporations want their way while providing jobs only around minimum wage bringing way more traffic and the related pollution.
> The real loser in all of this is the budget, these groups will just continue to sue and tie this up in court on such a small change, the most sensitive areas are all still in monuments. Just like the FS never able to manage anything as these enviro whacko groups just sue and sue keeping them unable to manage in the way they see fit. We saw this in the Brianhead fire this summer, the cooks would rather burn down whole towns vs seeing any tree stumps out there. Who knows? Maybe the insurance companies will start suing them and see how they like turning the tables for the losses that they created there...Rant over


Designation does not bring funding with it. Congress has not allocated funding because Utah Reps don't like it. It's the same reason the FS and BLM don't have adequate funding....congress. Lame duck is a ridiculous accusation, everyone knew this was coming for 6 years and congress and Utah Reps did nothing. Enough with the lame duck BS. As for oil and gas, don't even begin to say they don't leave a mark on the land, it's easy to see where well pads have sat, to say you can't is laughable, let alone all the high impact roads. I agree with you a lot about lawsuits, but for this issue specifically I'm okay with it. Patagonia's front page is a lie, I also agree. Congress has been inadequately funding every part of public lands. From Parks to monuments to multiple use BLM and FS lands, congress has dropped the ball on funding, on fine tuning managment and laws, and has done nothing to fix anything. The only thing that ever gets done anymore is by executive order. Congress is broke, and has been. Because of that our public lands have suffered. We can blame the enviro wackos all we want for things, but congress who doesn't fix the lawsuit loopholes, managment practices, and funding is just as much to blame.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Patagonia's front page is a lie, I also agree.


As was their publicly stated reasoning for strong-arming the OR show to pull out of Utah. Which is really my only point here. This level of dishonesty has become par for the course for them. In my opinion, of course.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> As was their publicly stated reasoning for strong-arming the OR show to pull out of Utah. Which is really my only point here. This level of dishonesty has become par for the course for them. In my opinion, of course.


Don't fully agree with you there but not having that argument again. Any luck on that next big trade show filling their void?


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

I was disappointed to see their front page as well. I will be writing them an email as I am regular user of their equipment.

I disagree with you assessment, Vanilla, about their statements during the OR changes as I think it clearly represented their values. If anything they have been vindicated in that decision from my perspective.


----------



## 7mm Reloaded (Aug 25, 2015)

What do you think about that Utah rep. making up a bill and suggesting turning what's left of Grand Staircase into a N.P.?


----------



## CAExpat (Oct 27, 2013)

> What do you think about that Utah rep. making up a bill and suggesting turning what's left of Grand Staircase into a N.P.?


For reference:
https://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=46211347


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

backcountry said:


> I was disappointed to see their front page as well. I will be writing them an email as I am regular user of their equipment.
> 
> I disagree with you assessment, Vanilla, about their statements during the OR changes as I think it clearly represented their values. If anything they have been vindicated in that decision from my perspective.


It's funny how one's perspective shapes their opinions. I see this flat out and blatant lie this time as strengthening the premise that they were at minimum disingenuous before, if not totally dishonest then too. If a company is willing to lie to you today, what makes you think they were being honest before or will be honest in the future?


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

I saw the Patagonia ad as hyperbole, not a lie. A call to action, not a criminal charge. To take it literally merely exposes ones biases.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

paddler said:


> I saw the Patagonia ad as hyperbole, not a lie. A call to action, not a criminal charge. To take it literally merely exposes ones biases.


I wholeheartedly disagree and think the inverse is true, ie to be lenient in interpretation exposes ones biases. I supported Patagonia taking a stand about BENM but I appreciated it being about their values and integrity. Their fundraising homepage is definitely hyperbole that intentionally misleads their consumers about the extent and content of the change. I have spent a decade challenging the flawed logic of the "Anti" crowd and I would be hypocritical not to do the same with those who support monuments. Middle ground and collaboration is built on truth and trust and this type of rhetoric undermines the limited chance we have at that goal.

For far too many decades we have accepted this type of manipulation as the fundamental strategy on both sides. That needs to change.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Vanilla said:


> It's funny how one's perspective shapes their opinions. I see this flat out and blatant lie this time as strengthening the premise that they were at minimum disingenuous before, if not totally dishonest then too. If a company is willing to lie to you today, what makes you think they were being honest before or will be honest in the future?


As I just told Paddler, I saw the previous issue being about those organizations having integrity in relation to their values. There was clearly tension and heated rhetoric in those negotiations but I think all the parties were trying to find outcomes that their relevant constituents could support. I just don't think there was middle ground to compromise on with the OR issue. The negotiations had run their course.

Their homepage is solely an indictment of Trump that is inaccurate and hyperbolic. Its a strategy opposition on both sides have employed for far too long and I personally think its an important variable in why we are at the crossroads we are experiencing in land management right now. Its harmful to the land I care about. When it comes to fundraising campaigns like this I am unequivocally against placing the short term gain of money over the long term need for truth and nuance.

I see a difference there but can accept you.r perspective if you don't


----------



## grizzly (Jun 3, 2012)

paddler said:


> I saw the Patagonia ad as hyperbole, not a lie.


It's akin to the hyperbole from Trump and Zinke acting as if they'd opened land that has been deemed closed by NM status. Just political grandstanding on both sides.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

backcountry said:


> I wholeheartedly disagree and think the inverse is true, ie to be lenient in interpretation exposes ones biases. I supported Patagonia taking a stand about BENM but I appreciated it being about their values and integrity. Their fundraising homepage is definitely hyperbole that intentionally misleads their consumers about the extent and content of the change. I have spent a decade challenging the flawed logic of the "Anti" crowd and I would be hypocritical not to do the same with those who support monuments. Middle ground and collaboration is built on truth and trust and this type of rhetoric undermines the limited chance we have at that goal.
> 
> For far too many decades we have accepted this type of manipulation as the fundamental strategy on both sides. That needs to change.


I see either interpretation as exposing biases on either side. It cannot be otherwise. Patagonia is an advocate for protecting public lands and their actions are consistent with the company's previous statements and actions. Their target audience, pro conservation outdoorsmen, understand that Trump is trying to take away protections, not literally stealing lands. Those less well informed, say Fox News viewers or Sean Hannity listeners, might take the ad literally and be outraged. Others may actually understand the ad, but feign outrage in an attempt to score points.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

grizzly said:


> It's akin to the hyperbole from Trump and Zinke acting as if they'd opened land that has been deemed closed by NM status. Just political grandstanding on both sides.


Very true, Utah delegation, Zinke, and the President has no problem lying about the monument either so long as it fit their narrative. There were some pretty blatant lies by all of them as well.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

paddler said:


> I see either interpretation as exposing biases on either side. It cannot be otherwise. Patagonia is an advocate for protecting public lands and their actions are consistent with the company's previous statements and actions. Their target audience, pro conservation outdoorsmen, understand that Trump is trying to take away protections, not literally stealing lands. Those less well informed, say Fox News viewers or Sean Hannity listeners, might take the ad literally and be outraged. Others may actually understand the ad, but feign outrage in an attempt to score points.


And there you have it. Less than two full pages.

Yes, we all have biases. The question is how we confront them if we care about consistency, at least in regards to truth and nuance. Be lenient on them all you want but its pretty arrogant to claim that calling it out, like I am, is feigning outrage to "score points". I have not doubted your values but you constantly call in to question those of others. There is no feigning or scoring points here, its about my sincere definition of integrity. I am going to hold people to the same standard no matter their affiliation and inflammatory rhetoric is something that is making real issues more divisive and less sustainable.

Curious if you provided the same leniency in language when folks talk about "locking up" land or "land grabs" by the right? The language is consistent with their small government stance and politics so by your standard its fair use. And if I applied your logic than only the "less well informed", like those that get their news from MSNBC or HuffingtonPost, take the ideas literally and become outraged. And then of course there must be those on the who understand but are feigning ignorance to score points. See how that type of partisan relativism works?

That sort of tit-for-tat, rinse and repeat cycle is the reason I care about consistency.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

How much fake news is in this video....both sides are liars, period. True story my ass.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

Patagonia and Yvon Chouinard is your friend!!!

Without friends like him we will surely loose this battle to save public lands for the future generations. What chance do a bunch of poor folk like us have against the wealthy that have forever raped and pillaged our land for personal gain. So few people with wealth and power are on our side as it is, and now you bad mouth one of them for being a little emotional and hyperbolic.

If you don't understand Patagonia and the work they are doing, study up...don't just make some blind statement about them based on one little headline.

Patagonia(Yvon Chouinard) is the friend of:
Hunting
Fishing
Climbing
Hiking
Biking
everything outdoors 
and most of all...FREE PUBLIC LAND! 

Don't let the real land grabbers divide and conquer us, for surely they are trying to do just that.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Constructive criticism isn't bad mouthing. I actually think internal pressure from constituents, in this case a 20+ year customer, is invaluable. Some clearly dislike the company or its politics but I know Patagonia and its values and often support their choices. In this case I think the strategy goes too far and perpetuates lies (isolated action is different than them actually inherently being liars in my book). If this type of strategy becomes s pattern then I'll have some different considerations to make. 

Individual mileage may vary.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

backcountry, paddler’s swipes, even in response to your posts, are swipes at me, not you. He can’t let it go. Just ignore it. It ain’t worth even responding to him. 

1-eye, I didn’t watch the video, but I saw who posted it. Never heard of them and I wonder why you care if some obscure group nobody knows puts out false statements? There certainly is a CRAP TON of false and misleading rhetoric out there on all sides of this issue, and I’m not going to search it all out to criticize it. The ones I take issue with are those that try to preach integrity, then flat out lie. Especially those trying to increase their business and bottom line with those lies. Especially those with an enormous platform, and use the platform to mislead huge amounts of people with blatant lies. That is kind of a problem.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> backcountry, paddler's swipes, even in response to your posts, are swipes at me, not you. He can't let it go. Just ignore it. It ain't worth even responding to him.
> 
> 1-eye, I didn't watch the video, but I saw who posted it. Never heard of them and I wonder why you care if some obscure group nobody knows puts out false statements? There certainly is a CRAP TON of false and misleading rhetoric out there on all sides of this issue, and I'm not going to search it all out to criticize it. The ones I take issue with are those that try to preach integrity, then flat out lie. Especially those trying to increase their business and bottom line with those lies. Especially those with an enormous platform, and use the platform to mislead huge amounts of people with blatant lies. That is kind of a problem.


Umm, Jon Bair(former wildlife board chair, and SFW president) is the narrator, Jon Peay is in it, and so are all county officials. It may be an obscure page but it was enough that Sportsmans channel and the Outdoor Channel shared it on their facebook pages, give it a watch.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

backcountry said:


> And there you have it. Less than two full pages.
> 
> Yes, we all have biases. The question is how we confront them if we care about consistency, at least in regards to truth and nuance. Be lenient on them all you want but its pretty arrogant to claim that calling it out, like I am, is feigning outrage to "score points". I have not doubted your values but you constantly call in to question those of others. There is no feigning or scoring points here, its about my sincere definition of integrity. I am going to hold people to the same standard no matter their affiliation and inflammatory rhetoric is something that is making real issues more divisive and less sustainable.
> 
> ...


I did not say that you were feigning outrage. V is correct on this, I was referring to his postings on this thread, and even the fact that he started it in the first place. I was actually giving him credit that he understood what Patagonia was doing, but calling out his lack of candor in pretending to be outraged. He was indeed trying to score points. Just my opinion, and I'm quite certain others also participate in this type of rhetoric.

There are those on both sides who actually lack the intelligence to correctly interpret the ad, those who are terribly informed, including many whose sole source of information is Fox New, Hannity, etc.

I understand your position of insisting on consistency. However, I think this can lead to a false sense of eqivalency regarding the honesty, credibility and integrity of the different sides, and not just on this issue. IMO, one side has been much less honest than the other on the NM discussion. Just as I don't believe that Fox News has any journalistic integrity while MSNBC actually is mostly factual. My bias, if you will.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Also worth noting Vanilla, I watched Glenn Beck reference the same Patagonia pic you posted and then say quote “you couldn’t even walk on it, you could only stand on the road and look at it.” Then he goes on to talk about how there’s so much misinformation on the subject. I also listened to Ben Shapiro’s podcast yesterday where he didn’t have any idea what he was talking about either. 

Now you and I know that is complete crap. I like Ben Shapiro and Glenn Beck, but let me tell you this makes me question how accurate they are at times too, because neither one of them had the slightest clue what they were talking about in regards to this. Ben Shapiro said quote “the government should never own this much land, almost all of it should be PRIVATIZED” which is really the end goal of these guys right? 

I mean watching Glenn Beck and Ben Shaliro throw out blatant lies on this issue disgusted me to the core. 

You want to talk about fake bull****, how about we talk about the Utah Senators, Congressmen, county commissioners, Governor, and right leaning media outlets that blatantly and purposely misrepresented both of these monuments with lies and hyperbole’s of the actual truth. The entire monument review and monument complaints were driven by FAKE facts and dishonest representation of these monuments, especially Grand Staircase. It has been open to everything but mineral development for 20 **** years and Glenn Becks really going to sit there and tell me I had to look at it from the road. Then lock me up cause I haven’t followed that rule. Time to criticize the dishonesty, misrepresentation, and just complete crap coming from both directions. The people pushing the monuments reductions are no more honest than the other side. Both use outlandish fairy tales like “the President stole your land” or “you could only look at it from the road”. Since we have to settle for the less of two evils anymore....I’ll side with the side that actually understands what public lands are and doesn’t want to privatize them like the side that’s pushing these monument reductions. At least I know Patagonia is sincere in their push to save and preserve public lands.... oh and they actually know what they are. Whereas people on the right like Ben Shapiro or Glenn Beck would put every acre up for sale if they could. Rant over....for now.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> You want to talk about fake bull****, how about we talk about the Utah Senators, Congressmen, county commissioners, Governor, and right leaning media outlets that blatantly and purposely misrepresented both of these monuments with lies and hyperbole's of the actual truth. The entire monument review and monument complaints were driven by FAKE facts and dishonest representation of these monuments, especially Grand Staircase. It has been open to everything but mineral development for 20 **** years...


Yep.

Historical truth and facts change over time, and reflect only the present consensus.

my BIL is 30 years old. He was 10 when the GSENM was originally designated.Within 3 years my family sold the last of the cows and grazing permits. Prices for those permits were valuable enough to justify selling.

If you ask my BIL today what happened to those permits, he'll tell you they were taken away when the monument was designated.

Truth. After you've been told something for so long, you start to believe it. Whether it really happened or not.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Also worth noting Vanilla, I watched Glenn Beck reference the same Patagonia pic you posted and then say quote "you couldn't even walk on it, you could only stand on the road and look at it." Then he goes on to talk about how there's so much misinformation on the subject. I also listened to Ben Shapiro's podcast yesterday where he didn't have any idea what he was talking about either.
> 
> Now you and I know that is complete crap. *I like Ben Shapiro and Glenn Beck*, but let me tell you this makes me question how accurate they are at times too, because neither one of them had the slightest clue what they were talking about in regards to this. Ben Shapiro said quote "the government should never own this much land, almost all of it should be PRIVATIZED" which is really the end goal of these guys right?
> 
> ...


I find the bolded phrase contradicted by much of the rest of your post. I lump Beck in with the rest of the right wing echo chamber, ie, everything they say must be assumed false until proven otherwise. I turn my radio to these guys for comic relief, but at the same time wonder who can possibly believe their BS.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

paddler said:


> I find the bolded phrase contradicted by much of the rest of your post. I lump Beck in with the rest of the right wing echo chamber, ie, everything they say must be assumed false until proven otherwise. I turn my radio to these guys for comic relief, but at the same time wonder who can possibly believe their BS.


Listen paddler I don't want to go too far beyond the subject at hand. All I'll say is if you don't think MSNBC is a bias echo chamber, you're not being honest. I agree with them (Shapiro and Beck) on many issues, and enjoy hearing perspectives from different places places. Ben Shapiro is definetly one of the smartest and keen political people out there. I can like listening to them and also know when they are completely full of it about something they know nothing about. On this issue both of them lied and misrepresented the entire idea of a monument and federal land, just like everyone who pushed for and participated in the "review" process. After listening to both of them it really frustrated me. Especially when someone like Vanilla wants to call out Patagonia when the entire group of Utah representatives, President, and Zinke were not honest about the truth of the matter, let alone those covering it who haven't a clue about it.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Listen paddler I don't want to go too far beyond the subject at hand. All I'll say is if you don't think MSNBC is a bias echo chamber,* you're not being honest*. I agree with them on many issues, and enjoy hearing perspectives from different places places. Ben Shapiro is definetly one of the smartest and keen political people out there. I can like listening to them and also know when they are completely full of it about something they know nothing about. On this issue both of them lied and misrepresented the entire idea of a monument and federal land, just like everyone who pushed for and participated in the "review" process. After listening to both of them it really frustrated me. Especially when someone like Vanilla wants to call out Patagonia when the entire group of Utah representatives, President, and Zinke were not honest about the truth of the matter, let alone those covering it who haven't a clue about it.


Are you sure about that? MSNBC has a bias, no doubt, but they don't out and out lie. They make corrections and issue apologies when they make errors. Fox News, Hannity, etc, lie on a daily basis and rarely, if ever, issue corrections or apologies. I am quite offended that you question my honesty. My opinion of you has suffered as a result.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

paddler said:


> Are you sure about that? MSNBC has a bias, no doubt, but they don't out and out lie. They make corrections and issue apologies when they make errors. Fox News, Hannity, etc, lie on a daily basis and rarely, if ever, issue corrections or apologies. I am quite offended that you question my honesty. My opinion of you has suffered as a result.


That statement is not about the outdoors, in any way. And certainly, as pertaining to the monument issue, both sides, have engaged in hyperbole, fear-mongering, and disingenous statements that entirely cloud the issue and don't provide a framework where most reasonable people can get an accurate depiction of what the results of the roll-backs actually are.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

I sent you a PM paddler, better place to discuss that topic specifically.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Kwalk3 said:


> That statement is not about the outdoors, in any way. And certainly, as pertaining to the monument issue, both sides, have engaged in hyperbole, fear-mongering, and disingenous statements that entirely cloud the issue and don't provide a framework where most reasonable people can get an accurate depiction of what the results of the roll-backs actually are.


This is precisely what I was talking about. It is my considered opinion that there is no equivalency in the honesty or integrity between the two sides on the issue on NMs. To lump Patagonia, the tribal coalition, the Obama administration, and other NM proponents in with the actions of the Trump administration, the local leaders and our congressional delegation is a huge mistake. This is a separate issue from the actual policy differences.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

paddler said:


> This is precisely what I was talking about. It is my considered opinion that there is no equivalency in the honesty or integrity between the two sides on the issue on NMs. To lump Patagonia, the tribal coalition, the Obama administration, and other NM proponents in with the actions of the Trump administration, the local leaders and our congressional delegation is a huge mistake. This is a separate issue from the actual policy differences.


I have no problem with your opinions about what has happened with the monuments. I favor the protections the monuments afford(ed) to the uncertainty now hanging over them.

I also disagree with the unilateral decision making that has landed us here that has been employed by every D and R president that i can remember, including the current administration.

I don't think it does the conversation any favors to pretend that you yourself should be the moral arbiter that judges the genuineness of the side of the political spectrum that you oppose with every breath. It's okay to have biases and opinions. It's not okay to share those opinions as fact without being willing to acknowledge said biases.

It is simply not productive. Calling the opposition liars and failing to acknowledge that the lies exist in spades on the other side is simply a result of failing to acknowledge personal biases.

We will never have a true compromise and certainty regarding monuments, and public lands in general until we can cut through the rhetoric and hyperbole on both sides, and approach the issues reasonably.

Call me cynical, but I don't see that happening on either side. It's important to call out the rhetorical tricks when they occur, just as it is important to call out executive overreach when it occurs, IRRESPECTIVE of whether we agree with the end-game.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Paddler,

Sorry if that comes across as a rant or a personal attack. I don't intend for that to be the case. You just encapsulated a lot of the mentality that frustrates me and IMO stifles true compromise and collaboration between people with different worldviews or conservation ethics.

As I noted. I favored the protections. As do you. I believe that your desires are for the areas to be protected for all of us. I think most here appreciate that and we are all on the same page in that respect. I think the methodology of protection is where there is a discussion to be had.


I, myself, disagree with almost everything the Utah Delegation does regarding public lands. But we must discuss the issue reasonably without the hyperbole and outright lies. 

Nothing has been stolen YET. Nothing was stolen when the monuments were created.

Both sides are engaging in rock-throwing that distracts from the fact that there are legitimate questions regarding the process that need to be figured out.

I'm nervous about Utah's intentions for the areas as a sportsman. I would also have preferred to see the areas protected properly through congress. 

I think we should be able to discuss that without engaging in the purely partisan nonsense.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

This is the type of analysis that is helpful IMO>>(just listened to it 5 minutes ago)

http://www.themeateater.com/2017/st...grand-staircase-escalante-national-monuments/


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Kwalk3 said:


> I have no problem with your opinions about what has happened with the monuments. I favor the protections the monuments afford(ed) to the uncertainty now hanging over them.
> 
> I also disagree with the unilateral decision making that has landed us here that has been employed by every D and R president that i can remember, including the current administration.
> 
> ...


The designation of NMs is not intended to be and never will be the result of compromise. The Antiquities Act came about because attempts at compromise failed to prevent the looting rampant in the early 1900s. That was also true in the case of BEs, years of talks failed to yield any compromise, which prompted Obama's designation. Forget about compromise, guys like Bishop will never compromise with groups like Patagonia.

I have repeatedly acknowledged my personal biases. The integrity and honesty of the players involved is an individual judgement. In my judgement, our previous president has far more integrity than our current president (a low bar, as IMO Trump possesses none). The same is true of the previous and current Interior Secretary, and I also believe that the monument proponents have acted with far more integrity than the local leaders and our congressional delegation. YMMV.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

paddler said:


> Forget about compromise, guys like Bishop will never compromise with groups like Patagonia.


This statement is a perfect example of what I'm frustrated by. Can't make a baby without Mommy AND Daddy. There are groups on the left that are equally as unwilling to compromise, and that is in NO way a defense of Mr. Bishop. Can't stand the fellow myself.

Also, compromise doesn't mean convincing the other guy that he's wrong and needs to come all the way over to your side. I'm actually in Patagonia's camp here, but Patagonia also has the luxury of not having to give a **** what the constituents of Utah politicians think.

The political environment is so full of hyperbole and fallacies from both sides, that neither wants to have an adult discussion at the dinner table. Everybody just says "forget about compromise," when in reality all that does is lead to more unilateral actions and overall uncertainty as the political climate isn't showing any signs of changing w.r.t volatility.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

I worry we have gotten to the point that both sides are willing to light the match and burn the table down to get their way. This political escalation is just so damaging. 

I've read so many claims their move "was good politics" which just shows me there is a fundamental difference between politics, which more and more just boils down to power and money, and sustainable governance, which will always require some level of swallow your pride compromise. 

I fear we have years more of this turbulent oscillation before anything sustainable is possible with land and wildlife management. I mean just look at the wild card National Park bill that I know I never saw coming. I knew things were wild right now but never imagined it was so volatile that a national park would be recommended for right in the middle of my hunting unit. I've been wrong plenty of times before but I didn't think I had to worry about my hunting privileges being challenged in that fashion in the Escalante area. I doubt its going to happen but it just exemplifies how all over the board the issue is in the area.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Kwalk3 said:


> This statement is a perfect example of what I'm frustrated by. Can't make a baby without Mommy AND Daddy. There are groups on the left that are equally as unwilling to compromise, and that is in NO way a defense of Mr. Bishop. Can't stand the fellow myself.
> 
> Also, compromise doesn't mean convincing the other guy that he's wrong and needs to come all the way over to your side. I'm actually in Patagonia's camp here, but Patagonia also has the luxury of not having to give a **** what the constituents of Utah politicians think.
> 
> The political environment is so full of hyperbole and fallacies from both sides, that neither wants to have an adult discussion at the dinner table. Everybody just says "forget about compromise," when in reality all that does is lead to more unilateral actions and overall uncertainty as the political climate isn't showing any signs of changing w.r.t volatility.


My post was a recognition of not just today's political environment, but the environment since the early 20th century. I agree that partisanship is at an all time high, and that it's regrettable. But the divisions in opinions of how public lands should be managed is nothing new. Again, those interested in exploiting public lands and those desiring conservation was the impetus for the Antiquities Act. If compromise were possible the Act would not have been enacted in 1906 and would not be necessary today. That's just the reality. Any hope for compromise is a pipe dream.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

paddler said:


> My post was a recognition of not just today's political environment, but the environment since the early 20th century. I agree that partisanship is at an all time high, and that it's regrettable. But the divisions in opinions of how public lands should be managed is nothing new. Again, those interested in exploiting public lands and those desiring conservation was the impetus for the Antiquities Act. If compromise were possible the Act would not have been enacted in 1906 and would not be necessary today. That's just the reality. Any hope for compromise is a pipe dream.


I don't subscribe to this view of the world, but I can certainly understand where you are coming from and I appreciate your passionate defense of public lands even if we differ in approach. I don't see continued partisanship as the long term answer and hope you are proven wrong.

Hard to be too hopeful given the current climate, but if people forget how to rationally discuss issues which they disagree on, we are far more screwed than we are right now. We need to strive for compromise even if it seems a virtual impossibility right now.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

1-eye, I had no idea those comments by Beck and Shapiro were even made, so it would have been impossible for me to criticize them. I haven’t listened to a word Glen Beck has said in years. I think he’s a tool. I’ve never listened much to Shapiro because I’m just not interested in team sport politics, regardless of whether it’s Ben Shapiro or paddler pushing it in my face. 

If they are pushing false narratives, I’ll just simply say it’s not surprising to me in the least. (That is exactly why I don’t listen to them!) Just like it’s not surprising when many others, including some on this forum do it. Like I said, I’m not spending my days searching out every position ever taken by any person on this topic. So you can keep pointing out instances and asking why I didn’t bring them up until you’re blue in the face. I’ve been pretty transparent and open about my feelings regarding Patagonia. They’ve been that way since day one of the OR Show beginning the talk about leaving Utah and my lack of trust in the motives behind it. Pointing out their further lying ways should not be a shock to anyone on this forum. 

I agree with kwalk in basically everything he’s saying. People would be wise to listen to him. 

My feelings on these monuments are based 100% on my fundamental belief that I don’t think a president should be able to use unilateral power to designate millions of acres of land with no checks or balances. That simply is not how our government was set up to operate, and when it does, I feel it harms the basic tenants of our political system. Now I understand very well presidents get to do that because congress passed a law allowing it. (IE- delegating their authority.) But that does not mean I have to like it. This is why I support Bishop’s proposed amendments to the Antiquities Act. For small portions of land in an emergency situation, let the president act. But this should require acts of congress to do what President Obama did in Utah a year ago. Just my belief. 

And no, I do not trust Patagonia. (Just to get back on topic.)


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> 1-eye, I had no idea those comments by Beck and Shapiro were even made, so it would have been impossible for me to criticize them. I haven't listened to a word Glen Beck has said in years. I think he's a tool. I've never listened much to Shapiro because I'm just not interested in team sport politics, regardless of whether it's Ben Shapiro or paddler pushing it in my face.
> 
> If they are pushing false narratives, I'll just simply say it's not surprising to me in the least. (That is exactly why I don't listen to them!) Just like it's not surprising when many others, including some on this forum do it. Like I said, I'm not spending my days searching out every position ever taken by any person on this topic. So you can keep pointing out instances and asking why I didn't bring them up until you're blue in the face. I've been pretty transparent and open about my feelings regarding Patagonia. They've been that way since day one of the OR Show beginning the talk about leaving Utah and my lack of trust in the motives behind it. Pointing out their further lying ways should not be a shock to anyone on this forum.
> 
> ...


The only point I'm attempting to make is if we are going to call out liars and those reaching here, Patagonia is closer to my goals for public lands than the right side of the isle right now. If we are going to blast one side, let's blast the lies of the other side as well.

As for your other comments. You're right you don't have to like the law, but conngress passed it and it really left it up to the President to designate. The law hasn't been touched because touching it since its inception is unpopular. If it needs reform it will be able to pass through congress again.


----------

