# Felony arrest for stealing stands and camera



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

https://fox13now.com/2018/09/08/par...ges-for-allegedly-stealing-hunters-equipment/

Sure hope she gets fired...assistant city attorney


----------



## 30-06-hunter (Sep 22, 2013)

Dang, hope she gets more than a slap on the wrist!


----------



## goosefreak (Aug 20, 2009)

She better get fired! How can she be trusted with her job if she herself is a criminal?

I'll bet these two think they are some tough cookies! probably even fart vegan dust..


----------



## crimson obsession (Sep 7, 2008)

Finally... some well served justice. Hopefully they stick to it in court. I was following this situation on the Facebook post and was hoping the police would follow through with what was right. We all have our opinions on things, but that doesn’t mean that either side was right or wrong. But what is wrong, plain and simple, is theft. Hopefully lessons are learned from this and less and less of these situations are heard about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 30-06-hunter (Sep 22, 2013)

goosefreak said:


> She better get fired! How can she be trusted with her job if she herself is a criminal?
> 
> I'll bet these two think they are some tough cookies! probably even fart vegan dust..


Fart vegan dust, almost woke my wife up laughing at that one!!


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

I don't think termination will be warranted, unless the Felony had taken place while on the job. However, a Government Employee is considered ineligible for hire, or employable, that has a Felony record. This is the basis in my opinion if the Park City Municipality will seek to terminate the individual. More than likely, the charges will be reduced to Misdemeanor charge through a plea deal in order that the individual may be eligible for employment. 


It's wrong what they did, and if it happened to me I would want to prosecute to the fullest extent possible. 


If I was to try this case, I would **** sure file motion for a change of Venue.


----------



## muddydogs (Oct 7, 2007)

Hopefully she gets the same fate that Davis County employee got this summer for being an ass about a camping spot.


----------



## Bowhunter50 (Oct 14, 2014)

taxidermist said:


> I don't think termination will be warranted, unless the Felony had taken place while on the job. However, a Government Employee is considered ineligible for hire, or employable, that has a Felony record. This is the basis in my opinion if the Park City Municipality will seek to terminate the individual. More than likely, the charges will be reduced to Misdemeanor charge through a plea deal in order that the individual may be eligible for employment.
> 
> It's wrong what they did, and if it happened to me I would want to prosecute to the fullest extent possible.
> 
> If I was to try this case, I would **** sure file motion for a change of Venue.


Yeah seems like the court would be a little biased toward the thieves.

The audacity of these people to ruin some one's hunt. If they knew the preparation and anticipation of the hunt year round...

they would still probably do it because all their actions are based off emotions and not logic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

Yuppy Scums that need a good pitbull bite on the a$$.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Be sure to stay tuned to this one! This case may answer a lot of questions that some of you may not like the answers to regarding the extended use of treestands, cameras and other hunting equipment! Especially, if/when the Forest Service and the DWR get involved.


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

elkfromabove said:


> Be sure to stay tuned to this one! This case may answer a lot of questions that some of you may not like the answers to regarding the extended use of treestands, cameras and other hunting equipment! Especially, if/when the Forest Service and the DWR get involved.


I thought the same. This very well could create complexities for sportsmen.

But conversely, destruction of private property and theft have always been illegal and their actions were not justified.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

Theft took place in Salt Lake County. So no need for change of venue. I hope that she gets disbarred. Not sure of city policy, but for a city attorney I think they should have a much higher standard. I'll wager a dollar this is not their first time. 
Funny part is they were caught based on their rare dog. By posting to FB they identified the dog and then them and followed them home. 
They better not get a plea deal, what possible more evidence could they need? They better get convicted of these same charges.


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

Park City liberals. It figures.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> Be sure to stay tuned to this one! This case may answer a lot of questions that some of you may not like the answers to regarding the extended use of treestands, cameras and other hunting equipment! Especially, if/when the Forest Service and the DWR get involved.


I think the case will come down to a simple thief and destruction. The items that where stolen and destroyed, regardless of how emotionally involved we are with trail cams and tree stands and hunting in general, will have nothing to do with the outcome. First time, actual value(much much less than is stated by the victims) and common sense justice will be the deciding factors in this case. My prediction...plead down to a case B misdemeanor, no jail time, 1 year probation and restitution to the victims. Absolutely no involvement by the Forest service or the DWR. 2nd option...not guilty(see weird defenses mentioned below)

I don't think this is the case that will settle the arguments over items left in national forests, and if by some weird scenario the defense can bring arguments like "they were just cleaning up trash, or trying to return items found that they believe were lost or abandon, there will be no discussion of the location that the thief took place or of the specific nature of the items stolen, and of course, no mention of emotional damages


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

There are a couple of places to complain to.

http://www.utahbar.org/opc/

https://www.parkcity.org/departments/city-attorney-s-office


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

BPturkeys said:


> I think the case will come down to a simple thief and destruction. The items that where stolen and destroyed, regardless of how emotionally involved we are with trail cams and tree stands and hunting in general, will have nothing to do with the outcome. First time, actual value(much much less than is stated by the victims) and common sense justice will be the deciding factors in this case. My prediction...plead down to a case B misdemeanor, no jail time, 1 year probation and restitution to the victims. Absolutely no involvement by the Forest service or the DWR. 2nd option...not guilty(see weird defenses mentioned below)
> 
> I don't think this is the case that will settle the arguments over items left in national forests, and if by some weird scenario the defense can bring arguments like "they were just cleaning up trash, or trying to return items found that they believe were lost or abandon, there will be no discussion of the location that the thief took place or of the specific nature of the items stolen, and of course, no mention of emotional damages


Character, and background will have to be proven in order to play out the line of "cleaning" trash up in the woods.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

taxidermist said:


> Character, and background will have to be proven in order to play out the line of "cleaning" trash up in the woods.


If that is all that is needed then they are as good as "not guilty". They certainly both have excellent character and backgrounds. I am not sure if the destruction took place while gathering the items or if they like intentionally broke and destroyed the items after they took possession.

Seems that many questions need to be legally settled...how long can you leave items in the forest unattended(must define unattended) or is it even legal at all. Things like drilling holes in trees and clearing brush. How about protecting personally privacy(is taking pictures of people when they don't know about it legal, or even ethical).


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

Fowlmouth said:


> Yuppy Scums that need a good pitbull bite on the a$$.


It's not just the Yuppy Scums that do this either, it's other hunters that do the exact same thing, unfortunately.


----------



## goosefreak (Aug 20, 2009)

Fowlmouth said:


> It's not just the Yuppy Scums that do this either, it's other hunters that do the exact same thing, unfortunately.


Fowlmouth, Did you just quote yourself?? thats some gangster shizz right there 8) 8) :cool2: :cool2: :hat: :hat:


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

goosefreak said:


> Fowlmouth, Did you just quote yourself?? thats some gangster shizz right there 8) 8) :cool2: :cool2: :hat: :hat:


I just wanted to be fair about it. There are a lot of D bags besides the Yuppy Scums.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

Fowlmouth said:


> It's not just the Yuppy Scums that do this either, it's other hunters that do the exact same thing, unfortunately.


Unfortunately true. I would hope they all get their due someday too. There's really no excuse.


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

Sounds like police are requesting that people report any other treestand thefts and or vandalism from that area. 

Think the police found something that makes them suspect more illegal activities?


----------



## 30-06-hunter (Sep 22, 2013)

Even made the kutv2 news a minute ago, this is getting good!


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

I just sent this email to Black Diamond;

*Hello,

I am an avid outdoorsman, I am into hunting and fishing, climbing and rappel, I have enjoyed your equipment from headlamps to carabiners and ropes.

I have a communications business where I also use these items for tower rigging.

I have a concern with one your product designers Andrew McLean who was arrested for felony theft along with his wife who is an assistant attorney for Park City, Utah. They were arrested for stealing and destroying hunting equipment from the field. I wonder how he would feel if someone committed theft of some of his outdoor equipment.

I have a hard time supporting an outdoor equipment company that employs someone that has such disregard for other outdoor sportsmen.

I was wondering what your stance is on this situation.

Thank you for your time and consideration and quality equipment.*


----------



## bowhunt3r4l1f3 (Jan 12, 2011)

MWScott72 said:


> Unfortunately true. I would hope they all get their due someday too. There's really no excuse.


Yup. This year I showed up on opening day for my antelope hunt after setting up my blind and camera on a water hole a few days previously. Found my blind, camera on the ground. At first, I thought it was wind, but since my camera was turned off and my SD card removed, I then thought differently. The funny part is there are like 2 million other water holes in the area. Not sure why someone felt the need to do that, but I'm positive it was another hunter. Guess I can be happy they didn't steal my stuff, regardless it wasn't too kind.


----------



## Chaser (Sep 28, 2007)

Bax* said:


> Sounds like police are requesting that people report any other treestand thefts and or vandalism from that area.
> 
> Think the police found something that makes them suspect more illegal activities?


Yeah, they found other hunting gear when they served search warrants on their home and cabin. Goons.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

You have to obey the law and so there is no excuse for these two but I must say that I despise hunting gear being left all over public land. 

As a sportsman, I am fully in support of pack it in-pack it out for blinds, cameras, tree stands, etc on public lands. 

Hopefully the new law in NV gets some attention and we can make some much-needed changes.————-SS


----------



## elkantlers (Feb 27, 2014)

Springville Shooter said:


> You have to obey the law and so there is no excuse for these two but I must say that I despise hunting gear being left all over public land.
> 
> As a sportsman, I am fully in support of pack it in-pack it out for blinds, cameras, tree stands, etc on public lands.
> 
> Hopefully the new law in NV gets some attention and we can make some much-needed changes.-----SS


Someone needs a Snickers.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

Now with even more evidence I hope they really get nailed to the wall. They better not plead it down to misdemeanors.

http://www.kpcw.org/post/more-stolen-hunting-goods-found-park-city-couples-cabin#stream/0


----------



## goosefreak (Aug 20, 2009)

Considering their previous record which I hear is minor, they will get a plea deal. I dont have a doubt in my mind about that but, I believe they should be hung out to dry.

They will literally be at the mercy of the prosecuting attorney.. I'm sure it will be something like 6-12 months probation and fines of equivalent stolen property value..


----------



## Kevin D (Sep 15, 2007)

I'm guessing there'll be a Go Fund Me page soon to help pay the couples legal expenses if there isn't one already. You know there's plenty of bunny-huggers and such willing to contribute just to make a statement.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

Springville Shooter said:


> You have to obey the law and so there is no excuse for these two but I must say that I despise hunting gear being left all over public land.
> 
> As a sportsman, I am fully in support of pack it in-pack it out for blinds, cameras, tree stands, etc on public lands.
> 
> Hopefully the new law in NV gets some attention and we can make some much-needed changes.-----SS


I could't agree more with your opinion. Spot on!

What is the NV law you are referring to?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Kevin D said:


> I'm guessing there'll be a Go Fund Me page soon to help pay the couples legal expenses if there isn't one already. You know there's plenty of bunny-huggers and such willing to contribute just to make a statement.


No need. We have Patagonia to pay the fines for eco-warrior heroes such as these people!


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

I think along the same lines as Springville Shooter.



Phillips said:


> "People think these trail cams, these tree stands, these elevated hunting platforms are bad; and they're just for murderers to sit in the tree and wait for these poor animals to come by,"


I'm a "people" and that is not how I think. In fact, I look at this stuff as littering. I see it as "spot saving". I find it offensive (and that is my right!).

I don't condone damaging other people's equipment. I don't condone stealing it either -- but at some point, doesn't that stuff become "abandoned"? Seriously, how long can you leave your junk on public land before it's actually OK for someone else to clean it up for you without being charged with a felony theft?

I hope the DWR and Forest Service are both taking a hard look at this case.

Pack-it-in --> Pack-it-out


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

What does the DWR have to do with this? They manage wildlife, not the criminal code. Unless you are going to say that they will make a rule of no trail cameras or use of stands or blinds to take game...

Forest Service could make rules, but that’s a slippery slope because they have to apply equally to all, not just hunters. These eco-chondriacs that are willing to burn down a forest to save one animal from a hunter may not like what those rules look like either. 

You can refine what “abondonment” means through legislation too. But again, those laws apply across the board. How long can a trail cam be on a tree before it’s abandoned? Well, maybe it’s the same amount of time your car be parked at a trailhead before it’s also abandoned. Could be a slippery slope. Careful what you ask for.


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

Park City seems like an interesting place - from tree stand robbers to purchasing a $870k home for their new superintendent...


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

I really do not have a problem with tree stands or cameras in the forest. As much as I hunt and as much ground that I cover I only run into these once in a while. I see much more trash, bottles, cans, wrappers and trashy camp sites. These bother me because I know the only one taking them out of the forest is me. Whereas the tree stands and cameras that I see I am pretty sure they will be removed.

That being said I have ran on to a few permanent tree stands built right into the trees which I am pretty sure are not legal and I don't approve of those on public lands but the temporary ones don't bother me at all.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> What does the DWR have to do with this? They manage wildlife, not the criminal code. Unless you are going to say that they will make a rule of no trail cameras.


This ^^^^^^^

I know the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission just reviewed this very idea and recommended the ban of trail cameras from locating animals between August 1 and December 31. I am not sure what happened with that recommendation...and, Nevada instituted new trail cam laws that do basically the same as Wyoming is recommending. So, I know that Wyoming wouldn't be the first state to ban trail cams.

Personally, I like the idea and am getting tired of having my pic taken by trail cams everywhere I go. I also hate the temporary tree stands that are left as permanent structures for weeks and sometimes months of the year. I think if a tree stand is left it is no different than the garbage--cans, bottles, wrappers--that you see in some areas.


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

I think that to outlaw the cameras that you would have to get all the government entities involved. Trails cameras are not just used for hunting.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Not necessarily...look at what Nevada has done:
https://www.gohunt.com/read/news/nevada-new-for-2018-seasonal-trail-camera-law#gs.xFIHNzU
http://www.ndow.org/uploadedFiles/n...cy/News/Articles/R012-16A - Trail Cameras.pdf


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I’m okay with that regulation. Now the follow up question is this: outside of preventing the catching of these types of thieves in the future, how does this regulation impact this current case?


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

bowgy said:


> Trails cameras are not just used for hunting.





NDOW said:


> NDOW recognizes that there are wholesome and legitimate uses of trail cameras, and unfortunately the use of cameras have been exploited far beyond most sportsmen's definition of reasonable.


Sometimes we abuse something to the point that we ruin it for everyone.


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

Yeah..... uhhh.... I was.... uhhh...... oh= monitoring livestock ... yeah... yeah that's the ticket.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

I think a few of you need to get over the idea that a camera or tree stand is a reservation.
I have a lot more problem with homesteaders leaving there camp on the mountain than a few trail cameras or tree stands.

You probably get your mugshot on about 20 different cameras every day of the week. Most of the time I doubt anybody really cares unless you are doing something maybe you shouldn't

And I know of several several areas where I hunt that people have come in and built ground blinds right under a tree stand. If they are going to be jerks some petty law is not going to stop them.

And I really can't see how the FS would enforce it anyway. It's not like they have an abundance of officers running all over with nothing else to worry about.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

middlefork -- I see no reason why it couldn't be regulated no differently than a bear baiting station. Tag it with your name and contact info, including the date it was placed. Other outdoorsmen would be more than willing to help regulate the placement of cameras / tents / tree stands / etc.


I'm not concerned about someone catching me doing something I shouldn't be doing. It just creeps me out hiking around water holes and along game trails knowing that someone is going to have a picture of me. That's just plain weird. But, those dang pop-up tent blinds that are left for months at a time....those are what really bug me....


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I'm more bothered by the cameras than I am the tree stands or blinds. If a blind was placed somewhere I was planning on hunting, and it was empty, I may just hunt out of it. I certainly would if I wanted to, and I'd be happy someone left it up for me. 

But I ask again, if we implement the Nevada law, what good does that do for this situation? Other than these people end up getting away with their thieving ways, of course.


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

middlefork said:


> I think a few of you need to get over the idea that a camera or tree stand is a reservation.
> *I have a lot more problem with homesteaders leaving there camp on the mountain than a few trail cameras or tree stands.*
> 
> You probably get your mugshot on about 20 different cameras every day of the week. Most of the time I doubt anybody really cares unless you are doing something maybe you shouldn't
> ...


Bold for emphasis. In terms of "annoying things in the mountains". I would think there are far bigger fish to fry then some trail camera's left out for half the year.

"Homesteaders" would definitely be one of those bigger fish. I know of one at least one area where this family circles their trailer train starting in spring, and they don't remove their trailers until the snows come. I know it's come to the attention of DWR, because I've had a fish and game officer ask me about them, and I gave him my honest observations - so I know they were written up (he even said he was going to), and yet they remain. In the process they do far more damage in terms of trash and erosion to the area then a few trail cameras or tree stands would EVER do. I'm pretty sure there are quite a few people who do this, and i doubt it's uncommon.

It highlights enforcement. If state and federal authorities can't even enforce the 14 day limit in a few remote, or less than remote areas, then how in the heck could they possibly be expected to enforce any trail camera regulations? Trail cameras can be anywhere, in remote areas, and can be well concealed. How is that enforceable?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Lone_Hunter said:


> It highlights enforcement. If state and federal authorities can't even enforce the 14 day limit in a few remote, or less than remote areas, then how in the heck could they possibly be expected to enforce any trail camera regulations? Trail cameras can be anywhere, in remote areas, and can be well concealed. How is that enforceable?


Just go on instagram. People won't be able to resist posting the pictures and videos.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Lone_Hunter said:


> If state and federal authorities can't even enforce the 14 day limit in a few remote, or less than remote areas, then how in the heck could they possibly be expected to enforce any trail camera regulations? Trail cameras can be anywhere, in remote areas, and can be well concealed. How is that enforceable?


Well, it seems a lot of the onus for enforcement would have to fall on hunters and individual ethics. I know that I for one wouldn't have a problem following the law and if I came across a suspicious camera that appeared to be placed illegally for the purpose of locating game, I would have no problem contacting local conservation officers with GPS coordinates. But, that is just me.

Sometimes, I believe enforcement doesn't have to be done by officers of the law...it can be done by those who are being regulated. Even if a large number of people disobey the law, I am willing to bet a large decrease in camera use. Isn't that the end goal?


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

Personally, I'm not sure I understand why trail cameras are even an issue. In my mind, in terms of destruction or littering up the wild, trail camera's are not even remotely the same thing as "homesteaders", overgrazing "range maggots", or some group of yahoo's trashing a place with empty beer bottles or shot up trash they left behind with a few boxes empty shotgun shells laying about. 

To be honest, I don't own any trail camera's, but I would if i could afford them. I think it's a smart way to go about scouting instead of laying miles upon miles of boot leather like i've done these last two months. If someone wants to work smarter and not harder, I won't begrudge them for it.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

PBH said:


> I'm not concerned about someone catching me doing something I shouldn't be doing. It just creeps me out hiking around water holes and along game trails knowing that someone is going to have a picture of me. That's just plain weird. But, those dang pop-up tent blinds that are left for months at a time....those are what really bug me....


I'm not saying trail cameras muck up the woods...I'm saying this ^^^^^^^

Personally, I really don't like trail cameras because they begin to take the hunt out of hunting. Everyone these days seems to be looking for the easy fix--the easy way to bagging a trophy. So, instead of putting their boots to the ground and spending a lot of time glassing, they go out and "litter" the woods with cameras that do the work for them. And, in the process, they take my picture when I don't want it taken!


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

A decrease in camera use may be some peoples goal but even if they are regulated like Nevada, I still don't get what difference it makes if they are out for 9 months before the season but magically disappear during "hunting" season.

For the record I don't own or use any trail cameras but I do enjoy seeing what other people see on theirs.

I guess I just don't understand why people want more regulations. I thought that was what politicians were for. Finding solutions in need of a problem.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Go back and read the links I posted. I think they answer some of the "whys" and "what fors."


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

middlefork said:


> I still don't get what difference it makes if they are out for 9 months before the season but magically disappear during "hunting" season.


For one, it would lessen the possibility for conflict. Consider the hunter sitting in a blind on a water hole during the archery season. Now consider the rifle hunter than decides to go check his camera on the same water hole while the archery hunter is sitting in his blind on the same water hole. Potential for conflict? Yes.



middlefork said:


> For the record I don't own or use any trail cameras but I do enjoy seeing what other people see on theirs.


Me too.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

It looks like a lot of assumptions going on in the links provided. I'm sure they are based on proven observations and studies and not on some napkin meetings.

Any links for those?

As for conflict it happens already without worrying about a camera causing it. Those pesky rifle hunters scouting during the archery season and bugling all day trying to locate that bull they are going to shoot day one of their LE hunt at 40 yards 

And don't even get me started on the grouse hunters running their dogs all over the place and shooting loud guns and screaming at their dogs.

It might make life a little easier if we all didn't get quite so offended at things with little consequences.


----------



## Rdog (May 17, 2018)

Lone_Hunter said:


> middlefork said:
> 
> 
> > I think a few of you need to get over the idea that a camera or tree stand is a reservation.
> ...


Nothing makes my blood boil faster than people leaving their dang trailers on the mountain all summer long. Every weekend I'm in the mountains I see awesome camp spots being "reserved" without anybody ever even coming by that weekend. All while the honest ones spend half a day or more searching for a place to camp for the weekend.

As far as getting my pictures taken by trail cams. If someone has any of me I've probably got my hands on my knees catching my breath or picking my nose! &#128514;


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

This gnaws at my craw. Aside from the crime committed and all that jazz this act remarks something that is fundamentally wrong with people and their thought process today and it happens more and more in all aspects of life and society.

We all have rights and privileges that are protected under the law and some may disagree with them as we may disagree with some. However, disagreeing with what others do lawfully protected does not give anyone the justification trample or infringe someones else's rights or privileges for simply disagreeing with them. In this case it's stealing their equipment to save an animals life. In other cases it's been vandalizing fur coats, or burning gas guzzling cars, etc. depending on the severity of the actions it can be defined plainly and simply as an act of bullying and up to terrorism. This is not civil disobedience or activism and it is not advocacy. It is a criminal act that stems out of the intolerance for the act and/or actions of those you disagree with. I hope these people get what they earned and that they learn something from it....RESPECT!

There is a quote from a Mexican president named Benito Juarez that says *"Among individuals as among nations, respect for the rights of others is peace."* I believe we should all take that lesson and try to live by it.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Andrew McClean's Black Diamond Ambassador Profile page has been taken down.


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

I have received a reply to my email to Black Diamond. They seem to be a great company. I like their products.

*Thank you for writing in. On September 10, 2018, Black Diamond released its brand ambassador Andrew McLean. Black Diamond appreciates all that Andrew has contributed to our brand and the backcountry community, however cannot condone or support him anymore given the recent events. We have a strong history supporting the outdoor and recreational communities we serve. Our employees are outdoor enthusiasts, and we require all Black Diamond's brand ambassadors to act professionally at all times.

Let me know if you have further questions or concerns.*


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

Park City council meeting tomorrow.

I bet the closed door session would be interesting.
https://d3n9y02raazwpg.cloudfront.n...67-6d34-44a8-a801-0746aa501208-1536610699.pdf


----------



## SawtoothDave (Sep 12, 2018)

*Wrong about Patagonia*



Vanilla said:


> No need. We have Patagonia to pay the fines for eco-warrior heroes such as these people!


Not trying to pick a fight, but you are wrong about Patagonia. Patagonia founder Yvon Chouinard is a lifelong hunter and spoke at this year's Backcountry Hunters and Anglers Rendezvous. He is a wise old man and sees all outdoors users as natural allies in the fight to protect public lands. He is a purist and I can't imagine him using a stand or game camera. For Gods sake the man doesn't even own a cell phone or computer. But he is a hunter, fisherman, and adventurer who is trying to protect what is left of our natural world.

That is what is so sad about this episode. I know Andrew and have always been impressed with his passion, although we don't agree on hunting, obviously. It looks like his passion got the best of him and he made some terrible decisions. He and his family will pay dearly for these mistakes. Hunters need to see themselves and be seen as allies with mountain bikers, hikers, climbers, backcountry skiers, etc. As partners, together we can protect our public lands from the likes of Mike Lee and Ryan Zinke.

With respect,
Dave Budge


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Patagonia has offered to pay the tag fees for anti-hunters to apply and draw tags with the agreement they will not pursue the animals in the past on bison hunts. I don’t know any more of an anti-hunting position than that action. They actively attempted to take tags out of hunter’s hands. That is the very definition of anti-hunting. But I digress. 

This Park City fella may be the nicest person in the world, but he clearly has a respect problem. He disrespects others belief systems so much that he’s willing to break the law to ensure people can’t live and do the things they love to do. That is more than emotions getting the best of him. Especially since all the reports indicate that this was not a one-time thing. He is already paying for his decisions, as he should. 

Welcome to the forum! Hopefully we can discuss other topics where we will undoubtedly see eye to eye. But we are not likely to agree on this one.


----------



## goosefreak (Aug 20, 2009)

SawtoothDave said:


> Hunters need to see themselves and be seen as allies with mountain bikers, hikers, climbers, backcountry skiers, etc. As partners, together we can protect our public lands from the likes of Mike Lee and Ryan Zinke.
> 
> With respect,
> Dave Budge


I'm totally on board with befriending the anti/non hunter community and share respect for one another as long as we are both allowed to continue to do the things we love, freely and safely.

BUT, take that Speech to an anti hunting forum and ask them the same thing and lets hear their response first.. Considering Hunters, fishermen and sportsmen have contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to make enjoying the outdoors possible on all scales, I'd say we are well on the allied side of things


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> Patagonia has offered to pay the tag fees for anti-hunters to apply and draw tags with the agreement they will not pursue the animals in the past on bison hunts. I don't know any more of an anti-hunting position than that action. They actively attempted to take tags out of hunter's hands. That is the very definition of anti-hunting.


...

Vanilla, you are taking one very isolated incident, a Bison hunt near Yellowstone park many years ago(2010), and letting it define your opinion of one of the great companies in the world. Here was Patagonia's response to the hunt:

"Lisa Pike, director of Patagonia's environmental programs, said the company has supported the Buffalo Field Campaign through small grants and clothing donations since 1997.

Patagonia will reimburse the cost of the bison license - $75 for residents and $750 for non-residents - for anyone who is awarded a tag but doesn't use it, Pike said. The company has not taken a stance against hunting overall but objects to the bison hunt near Yellowstone because it won't be a "fair chase hunt or ethical," Pike said.

"It's not a real hunt in the true sense of the word," she said.

A person can disagree with a hunt and not be "anti-hunting"! Tell me you have never disagreed with some specific hunt in the past.

Do a little homework and I think you will quickly change your mind about Patagonia and Yvon Chouinard.

Without people like Yvon, the battle to preserve the wild places and public lands that we as hunters all enjoy would have been lost long ago.


----------



## TPrawitt91 (Sep 1, 2015)

Good point BP! All the people on this forum who spoke out against the “cow slaughter” on the wasatch unit and the tags they were giving out aren’t anti-hunting just because they disagree with one particular hunt. Devil in the details once again!


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

BPturkeys said:


> ...
> 
> Vanilla, you are taking one very isolated incident, a Bison hunt near Yellowstone park many years ago(2010), and letting it define your opinion of one of the great companies in the world.


https://www.patagonia.com/actionworks/grantees/save-the-yellowstone-grizzly/

How about a more recent story? Slopes can become very slippery if one isn't careful ...

I love the picture of the sow with the two cubs on the site, trying to pull at the heart strings of all those who opposed the hunt ... too bad emotion is more important than logic.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

TPrawitt91 said:


> .... Devil in the details once again!


I've said this all along.... It's in my tag line! :grin:
Let's find the common ground and work toward that common goal.

I think the issue now a days is that idealism has turned into polarization and polarization into complete intolerance. Civility and common courtesy are going the way of the dodo.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

I don't think it's fair to say that Patagonia as a company is pro-hunting by any means. Their founder seems like a decent guy that IS a hunter.

I disagree with Patagonia's stance on the bison and grizzly hunts. I also believe they could have handled the hostages situation with the OR show with a little more integrity.

However, I agree with Patagonia's advocacy for public lands and stream access and am grateful that a company with their reach and influence chooses to advocate for wild places that I, in turn, am able to hunt, fish, and hike on.

I think finding points of commonality that start conversations with those who may harbor _SOME_ opposing viewpoints is a good thing. I think we have a lot more in common than we realize with a lot of these folks.


----------



## SawtoothDave (Sep 12, 2018)

*Good points*

Vanilla and CPAjeff, you both make good points. Patagonia, the company, like most people, makes decisions I don't necessarily agree with. However, overall, I appreciate their efforts and think we are better off with their voice out there. I didn't mean to hijack this thread talking about a company. My goal is to promote a path where all outdoor users find common cause in protecting our public lands.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

What is going on here? Are reasonable people disagreeing and having a discussion without name calling and partisan jabs? Hasn't anyone told you guys that this isn't how the internet works?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

BP, I assure you that I’ve done my homework on Patagonia. They are no friend to me as a hunter. 

As for the cow elk example- we’re comparing apples to oranges here. Goofyelk has been one of the loudest, if not THE loudest speaking out against those cow hunts. He is not anti-hunting. Now if he went on anti-hunting forums and solicited that crowd to oppose specific hunts and the. offered to pay the fees for anyone that applied and drew the tag and didn’t hunt it, yes, I’d call him an anti. But he didn’t, so I won’t. Apples to oranges. Or apples to watermelons, maybe? Not even close to the same thing here fellers.

Edit: I’m all for alliances, even unlikely ones, that give us more strength. But I’m not going to stand shoulder to shoulder with anti-hunting groups on anything. We may agree on some things, but they still want to take away that which I love the most to do. I’m not cool with that.


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

SawtoothDave said:


> My goal is to promote a path where all outdoor users find common cause in protecting our public lands.


Honestly, that is an extremely fantastic goal! My issue comes with a company that has, in my opinion, over stepped their bounds as to how the animals are treated on the public ground. Where was the company when the wolf populations became over objective and started decimating the herds?


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Sometimes, when we claim the moral high ground, we find ourselves alone on an island, with the water lapping at our toes and a 6' tide coming in. But hey, we got the moral high ground for a moment.

The above isn't meant for either side in particular. It usually applies to both.

..


----------



## TPrawitt91 (Sep 1, 2015)

Vanilla said:


> BP, I assure you that I've done my homework on Patagonia. They are no friend to me as a hunter.
> 
> As for the cow elk example- we're comparing apples to oranges here. Goofyelk has been one of the loudest, if not THE loudest speaking out against those cow hunts. He is not anti-hunting. Now if he went on anti-hunting forums and solicited that crowd to oppose specific hunts and the. offered to pay the fees for anyone that applied and drew the tag and didn't hunt it, yes, I'd call him an anti. But he didn't, so I won't. Apples to oranges. Or apples to watermelons, maybe? Not even close to the same thing here fellers.
> 
> Edit: I'm all for alliances, even unlikely ones, that give us more strength. But I'm not going to stand shoulder to shoulder with anti-hunting groups on anything. We may agree on some things, but they still want to take away that which I love the most to do. I'm not cool with that.


Just to clarify the wasatch cow example. We are saying the same thing. Goofy is not anti hunting for opposing those hunts. You can be against certain hunts and not be against hunting as a whole. Regardless of the tactics used to oppose a hunt. I see how the steps Patagonia took are above and beyond expressing an opinion on a forum. This still doesn't make the company as a whole anti hunting. The owner is a hunter for crying out loud. He is old school and wants fair chase hunts and interestingly enough both the bison and grizzly examples he opposed don't seem like fair chase hunting.

That's why I gave the example I did. Patagonia should be an ally to hunters even though they oppose certain trophy hunts that are basically showing up and shooting one in a national park.

That's just my opinion. And I agree Vanilla, real anti hunting groups who oppose hunting as a whole are no friend of mine. Groups like PETA, Defenders of Wildlife, Center for Biological Diversity and there are many more. Those are the groups to be worried about.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

TPrawitt91 said:


> Those are the groups to be worried about.


Agreed. But beware of wolves in sheep's clothing.

Packout, I claim no moral high ground in my position. Going the opposite way might indeed be the "more moral" way of going. But I sill feel the way I do. My opinion is just mine. No better or worse than anyone else's, I guess.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Kwalk3 said:


> What is going on here? Are reasonable people disagreeing and having a discussion without name calling and partisan jabs? Hasn't anyone told you guys that this isn't how the internet works?


hmmmm....

....I take the day off work, and this is what happens???
what a bunch of pansieasses!


----------



## NedC (May 28, 2018)

Vanilla said:


> BP, I assure you that I've done my homework on Patagonia. They are no friend to me as a hunter.
> 
> As for the cow elk example- we're comparing apples to oranges here. *Goofyelk has been one of the loudest, if not THE loudest speaking out against those cow hunts. He is not anti-hunting*. Now if he went on anti-hunting forums and solicited that crowd to oppose specific hunts and the. offered to pay the fees for anyone that applied and drew the tag and didn't hunt it, yes, I'd call him an anti. But he didn't, so I won't. Apples to oranges. Or apples to watermelons, maybe? Not even close to the same thing here fellers.


I think you are actually helping BP's argument here. you are saying the same thing: opposing a specific hunt doesn't mean you oppose hunting.

TPrawitt says it well in saying that Patagonia can be an ally to hunting groups. Just because you don't agree with 100% of everything they do, that's no reason to slander them. There is no denying that Patagonia's conservation efforts are beneficial to us as outdoorsmen.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

There is an absolute defense to slander, (it’s actually libel since it’s written) and that is truth. There is nothing I’ve posted here that isn’t factually accurate. 

If you can’t see the difference between opposing a hunt because you have an opinion that numbers are down and actively recruiting anti-hunters to apply for tags that you pay for to purposefully sabotage hunt and take tags out of hunters hands...well, then I won’t try and tell you that the sun will rise tomorrow or the sky is blue either. 

These are not one in the same, and it isn’t even close.


----------



## NedC (May 28, 2018)

Vanilla said:


> There is an absolute defense to slander, (it's actually libel since it's written) and that is truth. There is nothing I've posted here that isn't factually accurate.
> 
> If you can't see the difference between opposing a hunt because you have an opinion that numbers are down and actively recruiting anti-hunters to apply for tags that you pay for to purposefully sabotage hunt and take tags out of hunters hands...well, then I won't try and tell you that the sun will rise tomorrow or the sky is blue either.
> 
> These are not one in the same, and it isn't even close.


I'm not saying they are the exactly the same thing, but I think they are closer than you think. Patagonia's stance on the grizz hunt was most definitely due to a numbers issue. They don't think that the grizzly population is stable enough for a trophy hunt, that's all. And it's not that much of a stretch since grizzly bears only very recently came off the endangered species list. The same can't be said about elk. Now whether or not you or I agree with Patagonia on their claims that the numbers don't justify the hunt, that's a different question. Goofy has an opinion about cow elk numbers, Patagonia has opinions about grizzly bear numbers...so it goes.

But regardless of all of this, my issue with your post is more about the assertion that Patagonia is no friend to you as a hunter. Maybe they're no friend to you as a grizzly bear or bison hunter in the greater yellowstone ecosystem, but they do more for hunters than many realize.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I am fine just agreeing to disagree on this one. I have many reasons I dislike this company, in addition to the well-publicized anti-hunting actions they’ve taken in the past. I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything. Go buy all the Patagonia gear you would like. But they won’t see a penny from me.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

We live in a free country where we all have the right to believe and think what we want and those thoughts and beliefs are protected by constitutional law. What we do not have protected by law (moral or constitutional) are the actions we take against those that we disagree with when they extend beyond the protest and become a physical expression of that disagreement; be it on the person or their property.


We may not like or agree with each others thoughts or beliefs (or those of a company or corporation) but that's the beauty of it all. Don't like a person or a company use the power of the dollar and stay your money or spend it elsewhere. Patagonia, Nike, Yeti, yadda yadda yadda.... my wallet goes to those I decide have earned my support and business.


----------

