Patagonia joins forces with activists to protect public lands

[Gerald Martin]

Some poeple would just be pissed off if someone walked up to them and handed them a $100 dollar bill because it was folded wrong......

I would demand to know what their political bona-fides were before I expressed gratitude for the $100. I'd still take it of course, I just wouldn't say thanks unless they agree with me on at least 98% of all issues. #politicalpurity

 

[Big Fin]

I think it's either the appeal of Granola Girls leading men to become Do Gooders or Green Decoys owning hunting forums.

.....

Fixed it for you. #TheRealGreenDecoys

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Pretty sad how quickly some of this shit evolves into simple minded rhetoric involving phrases like "commies" and "green decoys". Stuff like this only exposes the mental depth some folks possess.

We can agree to disagree on things like monument sizes, scope, and the need for them. When you then further you commentary with some of the above, you've pretty much shown you're devoid of the capacity for intellectual conversation and problem solving.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

It's funny how the NRA gets bashed all around this forum because they focus on gun rights and ignore public land issues or support candidates that are pro-2A but anti public lands.

Yet, when a bunch of commies show up and support public lands but oppose - whether directly or by proxy - hunting the forum comes alive with support and gratitude.

Just a little something to ponder.

Through my personal and professional interaction with many of these "commies", I've found they are not anti hunting so much as they simply don't have a good grasp of what hunters are about. They view them through the filter of guys shooting whitetails out of a stand over a beanfield, followed by a bunch of stupid diatribe and high fives. Many of them are amazed to learn hunters backpack, bivvy hunt, and probe the remote reaches of wilderness.

Carry on with your narrow paradigm.

 

[Tradewind]

Through my personal and professional interaction with many of these "commies", I've found they are not anti hunting so much as they simply don't have a good grasp of what hunters are about. They view them through the filter of guys shooting whitetails out of a stand over a beanfield, followed by a bunch of stupid diatribe and high fives. Many of them are amazed to learn hunters backpack, bivvy hunt, and probe the remote reaches of wilderness.

Carry on with your narrow paradigm.

Exactly. You nailed it JLS. My hiking friends have no problem with my hunting. They do shake their head at the face paint crowd

 

[Ben Lamb]

It's funny how the NRA gets bashed all around this forum because they focus on gun rights and ignore public land issues or support candidates that are pro-2A but anti public lands.

Yet, when a bunch of commies show up and support public lands but oppose - whether directly or by proxy - hunting the forum comes alive with support and gratitude.

Just a little something to ponder.

If the NRA showed up to help on public lands, I'd be happy to give them the same kudos I give Patagonia.

Yet they have not. And they still tend to support anti-public land candidates.

The last time I can remember the NRA being on our side was in 2015 when they helped kill the bill that would have eliminated sage grouse hunting in MT.

 

[belly-deep]

Carry on with your narrow paradigm.

My narrow paradigm includes a lot of Patagonia clothing.

Off the top of my head, I know Patagonia opposes delisting GYE grizzlies. I'm sure there are other issues I disagree with their stance on. I'm not going to pretend like the left has nothing but love for hunters, but I am glad they are on our side for public lands.

 

[jryoung]

Through my personal and professional interaction with many of these "commies", I've found they are not anti hunting so much as they simply don't have a good grasp of what hunters are about. They view them through the filter of guys shooting whitetails out of a stand over a beanfield, followed by a bunch of stupid diatribe and high fives. Many of them are amazed to learn hunters backpack, bivvy hunt, and probe the remote reaches of wilderness.

Carry on with your narrow paradigm.

Just about eveyday here in Silicon Valley i engage a non-hunters and nearly everyone is surprised to understand what hunting really is and they are incredibly supportive.

The basis of their misunderstanding stems almost entirely for the media. Our own first, and then how it's regurgitated by the extremists. Vomit the second time around doesn't get any better than the first.

Also, conversations tend to be extremely positive if I don't use phrases like "you commies" "f@#*ing libtards" or "bunny huggers" as an example.

 

[Tradewind]

No Bunny huggers???:W:

 

[hank4elk]

Bunnie Huggers is what I get from eating too many bunnies......in my Patagonia fleece.

 

[JWP58]

I'm all for patagucci stepping up and doing what most of the granola crowd doesnt....

I believe their founder is an avid bird hunter.

 

[Zach]

If the NRA showed up to help on public lands, I'd be happy to give them the same kudos I give Patagonia.

Yet they have not. And they still tend to support anti-public land candidates.

The last time I can remember the NRA being on our side was in 2015 when they helped kill the bill that would have eliminated sage grouse hunting in MT.

I have come to accept the fact that PLT is the number one(or only) factor for a lot of folks here and that drives how they vote.

Myself and a few others may not share that factor as our number one(or only) issue when we cast our vote.

For myself, when my number 1 concern lines up with a candidate who will also be a champion of public lands it's a win/win. When it doesn't, I cast my vote based on my biggest issue then voice my concern for PLT with that candidate. Right, wrong or indifferent that is how I'm going to continue voting.

I don't happen to know what secondary issues concern the PLT majority crowd or how those are approached with candidates that don't agree with them. I'd assume the same approach as me, maybe not?

It so happens that most democratic candidates have to many "other" issues they push that make me never vote for them. Like you, when they happen to vote with something I agree with I'll give them thanks. That coin does not have 2 equal sides more often than not for me.

In the instance of the subject of this thread, Patagonia, has done something good by supporting public lands. From my perspective, that's great, but giving Patagonia a pat on the back is something I find very hard to do given other causes they have decided to champion.

This is my take on issues, including this one.

Hope that provides a little insight from Zach's world.

I'm done arguing about the PLT issue. My view/opinion is what it is, probably won't change much.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Zach,

That's a great post. I appreciate it.

I too have many issues that count towards whom I vote for. PLT is a big one, but it's not the only. As someone who is directly impacted by the public lands economy, as you are, we may have different approaches, but I truly do respect your opinion and the way you engage in the debate. Cheers.

 

[Zach]

Zach,

That's a great post. I appreciate it.

I too have many issues that count towards whom I vote for. PLT is a big one, but it's not the only. As someone who is directly impacted by the public lands economy, as you are, we may have different approaches, but I truly do respect your opinion and the way you engage in the debate. Cheers.

Which is one of the reasons I quoted your post as opposed to various others within this thread.

NHY speaks highly of you in our discussions and I've come to appreciate your posts more so than others. Mainly the methodical thoughts and comedic quips...


Sláinte!