Patagonia & BHA

grizzly

grizzly

Long Time Member
Messages
5,593
The Backcountry Hunters & Anglers Rendezvous in Boise last weekend was a huge success. Signs stating it was "Sold Out" were posted on the doors as it literally outgrew the venue.

One of the best speakers, in addition to Remi Warren, Steven Rinella, Corey Jacobsen, and Randy Newberg, was Yvon Chouinard, the CEO of Patagonia.

Here's a great recap of his part in the Rendezvous... https://gearjunkie.com/yvon-chouinard-patagonia-hunters-anglers

Grizzly
 
Wait for it. Wait for it.
We know its coming. Lets hear all about the lib, hippies. While $FW drinks at Mitt Romney's trough. Go ahead, tell everyone how all these democrats with bear paw stickers are green decoys, as your org contributes to Rob Bishop.

Waiting for it, in sure its coming.

Grizz, we need a T shirt with that "BS" quote.


From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
It is great to see people and groups uniting for a good cause.

Let's see Patagonia CEO Yvon Chouinard support wolf and grizzly hunting to manage all species. Do you think that would happen? Or is he going to continue to have an agenda promoting his base and environmental anti-hunting groups?

It would be nice if people and groups would work together for a good balance management, wildlife populations, habitat, public access for hiking and hunting, based on science, what is best for the species, habitat, and the general public.
 
He said hunters and tree huggers, not hunters and anti-hunters. I'm a tree hugger and hunter myself.

97172deliverancebanjo.jpg
 
>Even though they are for public
>land isn't Patagonia super anti-hunting?
>

Patagonia SLC has supported the Utah BHA chapter with donations for raffles and silent auctions. In case you didn't know the H in BHA stands for HUNTERS.

They make fishing gear.

Why would the CEO of Patagonia go all the way to Idaho to speak at an event put on by HUNTERS?

Did any douche bags from $FW show up in support of public lands?
 
Yeah I know what the H stands for. I was asking because Patagonia has donated to many organizations that are very anti hunting.
 
It was cool to see him speak.
I had the impression that Patagonia was anti hunting and assumed he would be as well.
He is not anti hunting but I would sure like to see him do something to let the world know that!
 
>It is great to see people
>and groups uniting for a
>good cause.
>
>Let's see Patagonia CEO Yvon Chouinard
>support wolf and grizzly hunting
>to manage all species.
>Do you think that would
>happen? Or is he
>going to continue to have
>an agenda promoting his base
>and environmental anti-hunting groups?
>
>It would be nice if people
>and groups would work together
>for a good balance management,
>wildlife populations, habitat, public access
>for hiking and hunting, based
>on science, what is best
>for the species, habitat, and
>the general public.

You think there will be a bunch of wolf and grizz hunting on Haliburton ground? No land no hunt. We can argue amongst ourselves after the land is locked up.

Not every hunter is 100% behind every type of hunting, or for every species.


From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
>It was cool to see him
>speak.
>I had the impression that Patagonia
>was anti hunting and assumed
>he would be as well.
>
>He is not anti hunting but
>I would sure like to
>see him do something to
>let the world know that!
>

Speaking at Backcountry HUNTERS and anglers rendezvous kind of seems like he did.


Grizz, any chance rendezvous comes to Utah? This is the front line on this fight. Be awesome to stick it in Bishops own backyard
From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
Tree huggers suck. Period.
You are in the same boat as all the liberals that would vote against all that good hunters stand for. Cant have it both ways in my book. Sorry if you were being sarcastic.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-18-18 AT 06:46PM (MST)[p]Yvon had a great story about taking his daughter from their house to pick up a car-hit Sage Grouse on the road and ringing its neck to take it home for dinner so the meat wouldn't be wasted. A few years later, his daughter, then 16 years old, remembered that lesson while wearing a cocktail dress on her way to a dance and the car she was riding in hit a deer. Emulating her father, she tried to ring its neck and stuff it in the back of her car so the meat wouldn't be wasted. WYGF pulled up and wouldn't let her keep the deer, but Yvon was able to at least keep the back straps. He's a lifelong and unapologetic hunter whose company has given $90,000,000 to conservation causes.

Just because somebody may dress differently, hunt for a different reason, or drive a hybrid instead of a Dodge doesn't mean we should treat them as the enemy. If they're willing to look past our historical differences and work as a team with a common goal of preserving wild animals, wild lands, and wild places; I say we take their olive branch and work together. Hunting is a diminishing activity and we need to "grow the tent" to preserve our passions.


Grizzly
 
She tried to ring the Deers neck and stuff it in the back of her car. I say bull shyt.
 
>Tree huggers suck. Period.
>You are in the same boat
>as all the liberals that
>would vote against all that
>good hunters stand for. Cant
>have it both ways in
>my book. Sorry if you
>were being sarcastic.


Conservatives who want to sell off our public lands, lock you out of rivers and streams and who want to create no hunting allowed national parks suck. Period.

Do ?good hunters? stand for the selling off of our public lands for the greed of a few?

Do good hunters stand for locking you out of your rivers and streams?
 
>She tried to ring the Deers
>neck and stuff it in
>the back of her car.
>I say bull shyt.

You know they are for public land, they can walk on water.
 
Supported blocking access to streams and rivers. Supported overthrow of the North American Management Model. Supports political party with a platform for land transfer. Does not support public land(neutral).

I wonder where $fw would rank on that list of 5 worst?

But more important. Where does Andarko energy, BP, Halliburton rank on those lists? They are the finances of the ALC, who is financing Utah's privatization effort.

When Andarko owns the land, and your now playing golf, will those bush hippies still scare you?



From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-20-18 AT 08:08AM (MST)[p]In case yer scared to open the link.

REI was #1 if you were wonderin.


Courtesy of Patagonia.com

#2 Patagonia: By supporting Cascadia Wildlands, Predator Defense, Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands, and the Native Fish Society, Patagonia earns the number two spot in our anti-sportsmen company directory! I've volunteered with other hunters that wear Patagonia and posed the question ? why are you wearing that? The response is generally ?they make good clothes.? While I cannot deny that, once again I have to ask why would you support a company that finances organizations that are intent to eliminate (or drastically reduce) your ability to enjoy your way of life? I like this analogy ? if you friend stole from you, would you still be friends with him? I guess most would answer with a resounding, no! Companies supporting the previously mentioned organizations are essentially stealing from you. They?re stealing from you, your children, and your grandchildren by eliminating or reducing the ability to successfully hunt and fish.

#livelikezac
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-20-18 AT 10:35AM (MST)[p]No scared. Didn't learn anything.

Also saw Gerber on that list, are we now protesting them too?

Since your good at Google, look up Ken Ivory. The lobbyist for ALC. Follow that with a Google of Richard Berman, "Dr Evil".
Perhaps Google Don PEAY and his thoughts on public land ownership, or the North American Model.

I still haven't lost an acre to Patagonia, can you say the same of the others?

Yvon showed up. Did Ken Ivory? How about PEAY? Did Richard Berman? Cliven Bundy? I haven't seen a single speech, commercial, dime from them supporting public land hunting.



From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
You forgot this on your google searches Hossblur

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.
 
Oil companies keep us all alive. So be carful in the quest to destroy them.

Every drop that can be drilled will be drilled, no matter where it is found.

If you disagree. Please tell me why I am wrong.
 
>Oil companies keep us all alive.
>So be carful in the
>quest to destroy them.
>
>Every drop that can be drilled
>will be drilled, no matter
>where it is found.
>
>If you disagree. Please tell
>me why I am wrong.
>


When you look at a mountain is your first thought, "I wonder if its maximizing its revenue potential?"

Why, if the feds can't afford land, would Utah want to take on that liability if all it wants is to hold land for the public? To go bankrupt?

Again. That fire down in Panguich I believe cost 7 million to fight. Remediation will cost. That's one fire. How many did we have last year? How do you think Utah is going to pay for that? Now add another 70% more land. Its gonna get sold. I'm on the mailing list for the state selling land.

You think when the state goes broke it will hold the Henries, or Boulder to keep your hunting?

You guys act like there is some shining success the states can point to to prove their superiority. There ain't.

But when the choice is a bush hippy, or a DC lobbyist, ill take the bush hippy. There isn't a grey area. Not really a 3rd choice. We hold it or its sold.





From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
Do not let the big bade wolf scare you.
Isn't that what you guys always say about the NRA?
I am sorry hoss I do agree that it would be disasterious for the state's to take control of all the public land but the way we are dividing is not going to help the public land issues, hunting cause or the 2 Amendment.
Just my 2 cents and that is about all I got.
 
Hoss, I,m not against your love of wide open public lands.

But I did not see where you describe how all the usable carbon no matter where it is found will ?not? be used by us all.

90 percent of Patagonia?s product line is petroleum based materials, much of which came from leases on public land.

If you want to take stab at explaining why they will ?not? continue to do business in this fashion, please do so.
 
>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.

This is the type of activist anti-hunting program you'd expect from the animal rights extremist groups like HSUS, ALF & etc. Very disappointing. Assuming this is real, can someone explain why any hunter should continue to patronize such a company?
 
I work in residential construction. Here is the key. If you don't want cracks, busted cement, crooked walls, doors that don't shut, water issues, it starts with the foundation.

Same with this issue. You guys are waaaaayyyyy down the road worrying about the furniture and drapes.

YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE LAND.(the foundation). Without it buffalo tags don't exist. LE tags don't exist. Buck doe ratios are meaningless.

YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE LAND. And far too many of my hunting brethren have become lackadaisical about that. They somehow just believe it will always be there.

I didn't join BHA one night after too many beers. I looked into it. What I found was they are so successful in preserving and opening up land, that the most feared smear agent in DC, Richard Berman was hired by Petro companies, ALC, etc to run negative PR against them.

I don't backpack. I don't own a Subaru. I own a toyhauler and atv. I wouldn't wear Patagonia gear for the same reason I don't wear Sitka, I have a limited budget.

But I know what I spent every morning while driving from job to job this legislative session doing. I had the listings for EVERY state legislator. I got updates on land/access issues from my BHA leader, and I called and talked, and talked, and pushed. And we fought hard to keep Utah from giving State soveign land at Utah Lake to a developer, which we lost, more State land pissed away.

We fought Mike Noel from opening up the mtn above SLC for development(not good for the extended archery). On that one it was a bunch of other non consumptive hippies in the fight with us. Yup, HUNTERS AND HIPPIES FIGHTING TOGETHER. Because SAVING THE LAND, was the important part.

Don't buy Patagonia stuff. Most of you don't anyway. But don't be so stupid as to think Yvon showing up and helping in a shared cause is bad. It would be great if we could get the mtn bike guys on board. Great if the skiers and boarders would help out too.





From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
>Hoss, I,m not against your love
>of wide open public lands.
>
>
>But I did not see where
>you describe how all the
>usable carbon no matter where
>it is found will ?not?
>be used by us all.
>
>
>90 percent of Patagonia?s product line
>is petroleum based materials,
>much of which came from
>leases on public land.
>
>If you want to take stab
>at explaining why they
>will ?not? continue to do
>business in this fashion, please
>do so.

LEASE. Not own. If they lease it we benefit from the activity. If BP owns it we don't.

Seems simple enough.

Why do you suppose the millions getting burned in this cause is being done? Why would a state, want the expense?

You are getting spun. To start in order to join the Union, western states agreed to have federal control of public land in there borders. They each agreed, it wasn't an after the fact mandate, it was set up at statehood.

Second, at no point has a state like Utah put out any management plan to keep public land open.

Third, this isn't 1840. The big private ranches were homesteads. Land GIVEN way to encourage expansion. Who do you think is going to BUY it now? You need only Google Wilkes Brothers and see how this goes.

Forth, hopefully in 50 years we won't be so reliant on oil(I use 1 ton trucks for work, and put on over 20k miles, gas is a killer) I like to think my kids and grandkids might still hunt land.

Flip the script. What do you think the bush hippies think about Patagonia working with us? Yvon took a big gamble, if his folks protest him, his company is gone.
What personal gain did he get? What personal gain does BP get?

From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-21-18 AT 10:36PM (MST)[p]Hoss, I don't disagree with most of your ideas about public land issues.

But I still don't think you understand that most of the items on your agenda
are moot issues.

The need for materials needed to hold society together are found in all our lands public and privet.

That need will be met no matter who controls any land.

That being said I believe Patagonia is a wolf in sheeps cloathing when it comes to hunting rights.

Their hope is to slowly change the definition of Hunter to Poacher,,, with the help of some misguided.. but well intentioned hunters.
 
hoss has this one hundred percent correct. no land, no hunting. no land, no animals. no land, no recreation. baffling that guys who appear to be intelligent can not grasp the idea that the platform of the republican party is to dissolve and sell off public lands.

my grandpa fought the nazis alongside men who believed the opposite of him on many social issues. but they fought together. for a common cause that was worthy of placing their differences aside.

no public lands and there is no jellystone buffalo hunt and there is no green mountain deer hunt and there is no strip deer hunt.
 
Castnshoot, you stated...

>Oil companies keep us all alive. So be carful in the quest to destroy them.

Every drop that can be drilled will be drilled, no matter where it is found.

The need for materials needed to
>hold society together are found
>in all our lands public
>and privet.
>
>That need will be met no
>matter who controls any land.
>
>
>That being said I believe Patagonia
>is a wolf in sheeps
>cloathing when it comes to
>hunting rights.

Let's assume you're correct and a day is coming where the Earth literally hits a point of zero accessible petroleum remaining... should we delay the end of mankind on Earth through conservation and alternative energy, or just consider it a foregone conclusion and rape and pillage what resources we have?

And if Patagonia is a wolf in sheep's clothing, and oil companies intend to get every drop of oil regardless of public or private land, what does that make those oil companies when it comes to hunting rights?

Grizzly

-----------------------------------------
"This is a classic case of a handful of greedy fly fishermen getting too greedy." -Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as told to KUTV

"It's time to revisit the widely accepted principle in the United States and Canada that game is a public resource."
-Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as quoted in Anchorage Daily News
 
Patagonia - that's an odd company to pitch at a ?hunting? convention. But the connection to BHA isn't hard to see.

For the record, I'm buying ocean front property in Arizona at the same time as I'm buying Patagoina as a friend to me as a hunter in Utah.
 
Grizzly, I say to you like I said to Hoss, I am not arguing for the destruction of our public lands system.

Only pointing out some important reality that hipacriticaly gets by past by many.

Also the fact that you edited out the final
point in my post as it has to do with Patagonia shows that you may be having
second thoughts about bringing them into
the hunting fold.

>Their hope is to slowly change
>the definition of Hunter to
>Poacher,,, with the help
>of some misguided.. but well
>intentioned hunters.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-22-18 AT 09:44AM (MST)[p]
I didn't edit anything out, I used 5 out of 9 paragraphs that went specifically to the questions I asked you.

Without public land, we lose everything. Hunting, fishing, hiking, biking, camping, all of it.

I'm friends of those that support public land. Patagonia is, oil companies are not.

*Did you listen to Hoss and Google the Wilks? Add the Koch's to it and you'll see the two greatest threats to public land happen to be energy billionaires. Coincidence?

Grizzly

-----------------------------------------
"This is a classic case of a handful of greedy fly fishermen getting too greedy." -Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as told to KUTV

"It's time to revisit the widely accepted principle in the United States and Canada that game is a public resource."
-Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as quoted in Anchorage Daily News
 
>Patagonia - that's an odd company
>to pitch at a ?hunting?
>convention. But the connection to
>BHA isn't hard to see.
>
>
>For the record, I'm buying ocean
>front property in Arizona at
>the same time as I'm
>buying Patagoina as a friend
>to me as a hunter
>in Utah.

If you hunt public land, which if u hunt Utah you most likely do, ANY group that fights to keep land open is a friend to you as a hunter.




From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-22-18 AT 11:20AM (MST)[p]>Grizzly, I say to you like
>I said to Hoss, I
>am not arguing for the
>destruction of our public
>lands system.
>
>Only pointing out some important reality
>that hipacriticaly gets by past
>by many.
>
>Also the fact that you
>edited out the final
>
>point in my post as it
>has to do with Patagonia
>shows that you may be
>having
>second thoughts about bringing them into
>
>the hunting fold.
>
>>Their hope is to slowly change
>>the definition of Hunter to
>>Poacher,,, with the help
>>of some misguided.. but well
>>intentioned hunters.

I drive a 02 2500hd, and an 04 cummins. But I don't want a drill rig in the middle of the Henry's.

I am a subcontractor, yet I hate seeing development swallow up land.

I joined BHA yet I don't backpack.

We all have our hypocricy.



I spent the winter/early spring harassing legislators on land/access bills. On the SLC watershed bill, proposed by Mike Noel(a favorite of a certain org), that would have allowed a ton of development in the extended archery unit. I started asking the legislative interns who else was calling. Nearly every one said, it was a few BHA members, and a bunch of "save our canyon" folks. Not once did I hear MDF, $fw, the repubs.

Save our canyons are a bunch of granola munching, Subaru driving, ultralib hippies, yet THEY were preserving YOUR extended archery unit. BHA was saving it.

$fw/MDF was busy selling tags at the expo.

If you hunt above SLC in the extended archery, THANK A HIPPY.

Now, if Tommorow they want to ban hunting, we can fight. But today they are on our side.

I'm fine with "trust but verify".


From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-22-18 AT 11:37AM (MST)[p]
>
>If you hunt public land, which
>if u hunt Utah you
>most likely do, ANY group
>that fights to keep land
>open is a friend to
>you as a hunter.
>
>
>
>
>From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN,
>PUBLIC LAND.

This hyperbole sure gets old.






(Get ready for change because it's going to happen!)
 
Hoss, you are right, we all have our hipocaracy.

My wife buys all the grand kids a new Patagonia jacket every year. Really is a great product.

In full disclosure I drilled oil wells all over the western US as a very young man. It was a fun life.

From there I moved on to general contractor building homes mostly.

My views on public land are the same as yours in many ways.

Just saying be carful who you aline yourself with in your well intentioned indevers.

For sure if Patagonia went away tomarro no body would notice, if the oil company?s vanished were sunk.
 
>Serious question. Is there logging of
>timber in any forested region
>of Utah?

They're logging SITLA land up Logan Canyon right now.

Grizzly
 
》If you hunt public land, which if u hunt Utah you most likely do, ANY group that fights to keep land open is a friend to you as a hunter.

Sorry hoss no group that is on the ultra left is a friend of mine the ultra left is trying to destroy everything this country was founded on if they get there way we as a nation will not recognize are own family little lone are neighbors and friends you think public land vs private land will matter.
I hear you about bade apples in the bushel (Noel,Bishop) but let's clean out the apple barrel not get in the pig pen and eat the rotten apples. The Republican party still support the issues that are the most dear to my heart (2Amedment,Prolife,Freedom to live the way we chose not the way the Government chooses for us to live) Yes the Republican party has been changing they have become more progressive and I am not happy with that but at least there is some old ones and new comers that are willing to stand for true values family,faith, and freedom. Let's find more with them values and push them to the top and I do not think you would have to worry about public land.
You keep demanding the SFW, MDF & NRA to stand with you on the public land issue and I agree I would like a more pro stance on public lands but are you holding Patagonia and other lefty groups to the same standard. What is there stance on logging issues, wolf managment issues, grizzly hunt or how about predator hunting I will bet a weeks wages that would be a hot topic with in Patagonia walls.
I am not saying don't work with Patagonia but please understand they are not friends at least the strong majority with in the company would as sone stomp on any rights we as hunters cherish.
 
Grizzly, my bad on the selective editing accusation. I was hoping that you were stepping back from the socialist point of view a little bit.

Let me try giving you ?my? answers to the questions you had for me.

>Let's assume you're correct and a
>day is coming where the
>Earth literally hits a point
>of zero accessible petroleum remaining...
>should we delay the end
>of mankind on Earth through
>conservation and alternative energy, or
>just consider it a foregone
>conclusion and rape and pillage
>what resources we have?

First my belief is that God will decide on the time of the end of mankind on earth. I know that statement makes me a nut in your world,,but that is ok.

Am I opposed to conservation and alternative energy? Not at all. Although the foot print of both solar and wind is right on the edge of by passing that of mining and energy extraction all over the western landscape we both love.

Finally, if my use of fossil fuels makes me a rapist of our natural spaces then Sir you are the same.

>And if Patagonia is a wolf
>in sheep's clothing, and oil
>companies intend to get every
>drop of oil regardless of
>public or private land, what
>does that make those oil
>companies when it comes to
>hunting.

Patagonia is a cloathing co. that thrives in a capitalistic society,, and then for some reason thinks it is ok to bash the very industry that provides the material from which they make their product.
(Marketing to the brain dead)

So that makes oil company?s a giant behemoth that does great harm to hunting because it is supported by rapist like me and you,,,and Patagonia.

Of coarse you can live in a cave like a real Grizzly,, and not be a hipacrit.
 
Castnshoot, if you're going to limit your posts to name-calling, labeling people you've never met, and talking down to people with opinions that aren't the same as yours; you should probably get a grasp of spelling of the English language.

You've got about a dozen misspelled words on this thread alone. It's pretty hard to claim mental supremacy when you can't even spell.

Grizzly
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-22-18 AT 07:33PM (MST)[p]Grizzly, sorry about my spelling, you are right it is really bad. I do not see that I called any body a name. Only pointed out hypocrisy all around. Including my own.

Am I not allowed a opinion if it is not spelled right?

Should I no longer respond to your posts?

Or only if I agree with them like in socialist society?

Let me know,, no hard feelings.
 
>》If you hunt public land, which
>if u hunt Utah you
>most likely do, ANY group
>that fights to keep land
>open is a friend to
>you as a hunter.
>
>Sorry hoss no group that is
>on the ultra left is
>a friend of mine the
>ultra left is trying to
>destroy everything this country was
>founded on if they get
>there way we as a
>nation will not recognize are
>own family little lone are
>neighbors and friends you think
>public land vs private land
>will matter.
>I hear you about bade apples
>in the bushel (Noel,Bishop) but
>let's clean out the apple
>barrel not get in the
>pig pen and eat the
>rotten apples. The Republican party
>still support the issues that
>are the most dear to
>my heart (2Amedment,Prolife,Freedom to live
>the way we chose not
>the way the Government chooses
>for us to live) Yes
>the Republican party has been
>changing they have become more
>progressive and I am not
>happy with that but at
>least there is some old
>ones and new comers that
>are willing to stand for
>true values family,faith, and freedom.
>Let's find more with them
>values and push them to
>the top and I do
>not think you would have
>to worry about public land.
>
>You keep demanding the SFW, MDF
>& NRA to stand with
>you on the public land
>issue and I agree I
>would like a more pro
>stance on public lands but
>are you holding Patagonia and
>other lefty groups to the
>same standard. What is there
>stance on logging issues, wolf
>managment issues, grizzly hunt or
>how about predator hunting I
>will bet a weeks wages
>that would be a hot
>topic with in Patagonia walls.
>
>I am not saying don't work
>with Patagonia but please understand
>they are not friends at
>least the strong majority with
>in the company would as
>sone stomp on any rights
>we as hunters cherish.
>

If the state of Utah takes control of the 70% of public land in its borders, you "rights" as a hunter ARE GONE.

I'm amazed at the thousands of threads in here in which guys blast the DWR for "only caring about the money" and selling too many tags, YET they have some blind faith the SAME STATE GOVERNMENT won't care about money and sell off land. Its illogical.

Patagonia didn't fight to keep fisherman out of streams, $fw did.

BGF gladly takes $360k of your money, while wolves run in northern and southern Utah.

Those "few bad apples" gave away State soveign land on Utah Lake to a private developed this year.

Patagonia didn't screw you on any of those deals. Yet you'll support $fw, BGF, and vote straight republican. Maybe you should worry more about your "friends".










From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
>》If you hunt public land, which
>i
>Sorry hoss no group that is
>on the ultra left is
>a friend of mine the
>ultra left is trying to
>destroy everything this country was
>founded on if they get
>there way we as a
>nation will not recognize are
>own family little lone are
>neighbors and friends you think
>public land vs private land
>will matter.
>I hear you about bade apples
>in the bushel (Noel,Bishop) but
>let's clean out the apple
>barrel not get in the
>pig pen and eat the
>rotten apples. The Republican party
>still support the issues that
>are the most dear to
>my heart (2Amedment,Prolife,Freedom to live
>the way we chose not
>the way the Government chooses
>for us to live) Yes
>the Republican party has been
>changing they have become more
>progressive and I am not
>happy with that but at
>least there is some old
>ones and new comers that
>are willing to stand for
>true values family,faith, and freedom.
>Let's find more with them
>values and push them to
>the top and I do
>not think you would have
>to worry about public land.
>
>You keep demanding the SFW, MDF
>& NRA to stand with
>you on the public land
>issue and I agree I
>would like a more pro
>stance on public lands but
>are you holding Patagonia and
>other lefty groups to the
>same standard. What is there
>stance on logging issues, wolf
>managment issues, grizzly hunt or
>how about predator hunting I
>will bet a weeks wages
>that would be a hot
>topic with in Patagonia walls.
>
>I am not saying don't work
>with Patagonia but please understand
>they are not friends at
>least the strong majority with
>in the company would as
>sone stomp on any rights
>we as hunters cherish.
>

You bible thumpers crack me up. This thread Is about public land, not abortion, gay marriage, hunting, logging, mining, drilling, predator control it's about public land. Right now Patagonia is about preserving our public lands and putting their money where their mouth is.

You talk about voting out the "bade" apples. A thousand dollars says when it comes voting time you will still vote for a$$ holes like Herbert, bishop, Noel, ivory and the likes only because they have an R next to their name.
Chaffetz is out but did you listen to the debate between the 3 candidates vying for his spot? THEY'RE ALL THE SAME. It didn't matter who you voted for. Now Noel is retiring and he'll be replaced by someone with the same mindset and even if that person came out and said straight up that his life's mission was to get rid of all public land you would vote for that person only because he has an R next to his name.

and btw, done is spelled d o n e.
 
>Grizzly, my bad on the selective
>editing accusation. I was hoping
>that you were stepping back
>from the socialist point of
>view a little bit.
>
>Let me try giving you ?my?
>answers to the questions you
>had for me.
>
>>Let's assume you're correct and a
>>day is coming where the
>>Earth literally hits a point
>>of zero accessible petroleum remaining...
>>should we delay the end
>>of mankind on Earth through
>>conservation and alternative energy, or
>>just consider it a foregone
>>conclusion and rape and pillage
>>what resources we have?
>
>First my belief is that God
>will decide on the time
>of the end of mankind
>on earth. I know that
>statement makes me a nut
>in your world,,but that is
>ok.
>
>Am I opposed to conservation and
>alternative energy? Not at all.
> Although the foot print
>of both solar and wind
>is right on the edge
>of by passing that of
>mining and energy extraction all
>over the western landscape we
>both love.
>
>Finally, if my use of fossil
>fuels makes me a rapist
>of our natural spaces then
>Sir you are the same.
>
>
>>And if Patagonia is a wolf
>>in sheep's clothing, and oil
>>companies intend to get every
>>drop of oil regardless of
>>public or private land, what
>>does that make those oil
>>companies when it comes to
>>hunting.
>
>Patagonia is a cloathing co. that
>thrives in a capitalistic society,,
>and then for some reason
>thinks it is ok to
>bash the very industry that
>provides the material from which
>they make their product.
>(Marketing to the brain dead)
>
>So that makes oil company?s
>a giant behemoth that does
>great harm to hunting because
>it is supported by rapist
>like me and you,,,and Patagonia.
>
>
>Of coarse you can live in
>a cave like a
> real Grizzly,, and not
>be a hipacrit.



I hope if nothing else you'll open your mind up a little. Obviously your beliefs are yours, I ain't gonna change that. But I hope you'll start to look around. Hunting is going through a reformation, or revolution. I love Newberg and Rinella. But its a LA comedian and UFC color guy who is the #1 voice for hunters now. For all the crap I give the flat brimmers, these young guys are the driving force. They still care about killing big stuff, but more and more their content is about the experience, the journey. Some are new to hunting, and they correctly(in my view) recognize the overwhelming importance of the land. RMEF and DU have been preaching habitat forever. Now the new wave is paying attention.

That new wave listens to crap music, tat themselves up, wear earrings, and flat brims. They are more liberal, less religious. I have almost nothing in common with them. EXCEPT, like them I spent tons of time on public land.

Ridgetops tag is right, change is coming. Us older, more conservative, more redneck guys need to open our eyes and see who ACTUALLY is on board, and who TALKS A GOOD GAME, THEN BACKROOMS US.

We can all see the anti groups that Patagonia has in their orbit.

The ones you need to fear are the ones you can't see. The ones like Romney driving around in a 02 chev truck, trying to give you good optics while he BACKROOMS everything.

If nothing else, change your affiliation to I(independent), vote for your usuals, but at least they don't take you for granted.


From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-23-18 AT 05:57PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Apr-23-18 AT 12:42?PM (MST)

Hoss, I have enjoyed this back and forth with you and Grizzly. I am afraid that my debating style may have up set Grizzly.

In reality my views on the control and access to our public lands are much the same as yours.

The battle between the states and the feds over the control has gone on for many years.

The tension between the two (IMO) is what has kept things so good for you and I over the years.

As long as neither has complete controll things are more likely to stay the same, and that is a good thing.

But I have a real hard time riding shotgun with the side that has most of our kids believing that if a man puts on a dress that he really is a woman, and if you say diferant you are a bad person.

It is just a logic thing.
 
Hoss i am with you on protecting the public land i just see us fixing the system we already have it has worked for 200 plus years. Lets get some guys, gals running for office that can help fight the good fight. We can B#### about our political leaders all day long (I do more of that than i should) is this going to win the fight for the long haul or are we going to be fighting to use the public land.
Some of these organizations you have stated in past threads will push politicians that will take the public land that we cherish and lock it up and very few people will get to use it they have already stated that in past statements. I know very little about Patagonia the company but i do know the people they hold in a high esteem are not friends of multiply land use.
I am asking anyone out there please give us some names of political leaders that can fight the good fight and lets get in and push them to the top use social media use word of mouth just get the names out there and lets make a difference.
Shotgunjim i do not know what your problem is but i was not making this thread about Bible thumping just stated i like to keep my politicians on the Traditional Values side that is important to me i will not apologize to no one for that period!!!
 
>Hoss i am with you on
>protecting the public land i
>just see us fixing the
>system we already have it
>has worked for 200 plus
>years. Lets get some guys,
>gals running for office that
>can help fight the good
>fight. We can B#### about
>our political leaders all day
>long (I do more of
>that than i should) is
>this going to win the
>fight for the long haul
>or are we going to
>be fighting to use the
>public land.
>Some of these organizations you have
>stated in past threads will
>push politicians that will take
>the public land that we
>cherish and lock it up
>and very few people will
>get to use it they
>have already stated that in
>past statements. I know very
>little about Patagonia the company
>but i do know the
>people they hold in a
>high esteem are not friends
>of multiply land use.
>I am asking anyone out there
>please give us some names
>of political leaders that can
>fight the good fight and
>lets get in and push
>them to the top use
>social media use word of
>mouth just get the names
>out there and lets make
>a difference.
>Shotgunjim i do not know what
>your problem is but i
>was not making this thread
>about Bible thumping just stated
>i like to keep my
>politicians on the Traditional Values
>side that is important to
>me i will not apologize
>to no one for that
>period!!!

Sweet. I won!!!!?

I think today kinda reinforced what I'm saying. I saw that Yeti dumped the NRA. That's the perfect example of a company PUBLICALLY saying/doing all the right things, then knifing us in the back. I've made my issue with NRA known, but that action today was a complete betrayal.

I can't afford Patagonia. I'm aware of their leftist slant. I just don't get when land became a wedge issue politically, so that when those leftists help us out, we can't accept the help. I realize I will now get sent every lib thing they do. Put ill take their help on this issue, and truth is, if next week we see it was crap, really what are we out?

To beat back this well financed, well connected effort, its gonna mean we find ourselves along side so "non traditional" folks. To me it matters enough I'm fine with that. I'm hoping to convince others they need be too.


From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
Hoss, your definitive statement about who my friends are as a Utah hunter are a gross over-simplification of the issue, and actually not factual. Not everyone that supports public lands remaining public are friends to me as a hunter.

And while you and I agree on our desire to have the state take control of public lands, your statement that if you do our rights our ?gone? is not factually accurate. But I guess we're talking politics now, so why would anyone care about facts?

No, Patagonia is not a friend to me as a hunter. And they are not friends to any Utahn, really.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-23-18 AT 08:20PM (MST)[p]Nobody knows where Patagonia may eventually stand in regards to hunting or if this is just some grand scheme to trick gullible hunters. What we do know is that Patagonia is pro-public-land. We also know exactly what will happen if public land is privatized.

Even if the Patagonia fear-mongering were to come true regarding grizzlies, wolves, predators, etc... it could all be undone with future legislation. Privatizing public land is permanent and there is no going back. Public land hunters MUST win 100% of the time. The land grabbers only have to win once.

So many people here are attacking Patagonia based on a theoretical fear while defending/voting for people who are openly hostile towards public land.

And you think the threat is Patagonia joining Newberg, Rinella, and Remi in Boise?

For the life of me, I cannot connect those dots. \_:-(_/

Grizzly

-----------------------------------------
"This is a classic case of a handful of greedy fly fishermen getting too greedy." -Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as told to KUTV

"It's time to revisit the widely accepted principle in the United States and Canada that game is a public resource."
-Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as quoted in Anchorage Daily News
 
Grizz it is not theory about who the people of Patagonia will help get elected and they will not be friendly to hunters and multiply use users i.e. Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, Barbra Boxer, Chuck Schumer, Dian Feinstein. Yes I have voted for some of these guys you all keep saying are bad for public land. I would vote for someone better but who is that I keep asking for someone else to vote for and I just read that I am wrong and that I think in theory and I am using fear mongering. I think the fear mongering is coming from you all there is no real threat to take the federal controlled land and turn it over to the states.
Hoss stated in post 38 (If you hunt public land, which if you hunt Utah you most likely do, ANY group that fights to keep land open is a friend to you as a hunter) that is a little disingenuous I do not believe Patagonia and there friends would keep land open for multiple use. Yes they are on the same page to keep the land controled by the feds.
I am not trying to make statements for you all so please do not try and make statements for me.
 
Grizz, my dislike and distrust of Patagonia has nothing to do with theories or fear. I'm happy to align with any party where their interests are the same as mine. But I'm not jumping fully into bed with a snake.

You let many of the ultra-left public land supporters dictate public land policies, even with them remaining in federal control, and tell me how that works out for us as hunters. Again, I'm happy to stand side by side on singular issues, but I don't trust them on all issues.
 
>Grizz, my dislike and distrust of
>Patagonia has nothing to do
>with theories or fear. I'm
>happy to align with any
>party where their interests are
>the same as mine. But
>I'm not jumping fully into
>bed with a snake.
>
>You let many of the ultra-left
>public land supporters dictate public
>land policies, even with them
>remaining in federal control, and
>tell me how that works
>out for us as hunters.
>Again, I'm happy to stand
>side by side on singular
>issues, but I don't trust
>them on all issues.
+1
Better stated and shorter.
 
>Hoss, your definitive statement about who
>my friends are as a
>Utah hunter are a gross
>over-simplification of the issue, and
>actually not factual. Not everyone
>that supports public lands remaining
>public are friends to me
>as a hunter.
>
>And while you and I agree
>on our desire to have
>the state take control of
>public lands, your statement that
>if you do our rights
>our ?gone? is not factually
>accurate. But I guess we're
>talking politics now, so why
>would anyone care about facts?
>
>
>No, Patagonia is not a friend
>to me as a hunter.
> And they are not
>friends to any Utahn, really.
>

You need only show me where Utah is on acquiring and opening land. Cuz whether its SITLA land continually being sold, or State soveign land being given away, the reality is the reality.

Its amazing to me $fw can actually work to RESTRICT stream access, plead neutrality on land, yet they are a friend. But a gear company goes and speaks at BHA and that's an issue?

Where was $fw? Did they show? Did they speak?

If Patagonia rolls over Tommorow, what did we lose?

Sad thing is we need more than Patagonia to beat back ALC, the Republican Party, and most of the petroleum companies.

Yvon spoke. If he follows through, good for us. If he doesn't, nothing changed.

Still waiting for $fw to even speak, and that cancer costs us millions.
But somehow they are our friend.

When the repubs put transfer on their national platform, they made it political. No one made them do it.

From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
SITLA lands...really? Do you even know what SITLA lands are? I am trying to figure out if this has just become so political that facts no longer matter, or if you are misinformed? Not trying to be a jerk, but with comments like that, I have to ask. If it's the former, there really is nothing left to discuss.

Nobody that has been paying attention the last 10 years will mistake me for a SFW supporter. Don?t think for one second that I consider them a friend, even if I can acknowledge they have done many good things along the way. But it fits your otherwise false narrative to project that, so I can see why you'd say it.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-24-18 AT 07:12AM (MST)[p]>SITLA lands...really? Do you even know
>what SITLA lands are? I
>am trying to figure out
>if this has just become
>so political that facts no
>longer matter, or if you
>are misinformed? Not trying to
>be a jerk, but with
>comments like that, I have
>to ask. If it's the
>former, there really is nothing
>left to discuss.
>
>Nobody that has been paying attention
>the last 10 years will
>mistake me for a SFW
>supporter. Don?t think for one
>second that I consider them
>a friend, even if I
>can acknowledge they have done
>many good things along the
>way. But it fits your
>otherwise false narrative to project
>that, so I can see
>why you'd say it.


What false narrative? The $fw stuff wasn't aimed at you, but the point is valid. Yeah, I know what SITLA is. I like how everything is a false narrative, yet all you say is Its a false narrative.

So despite SITLA selling, State Soveign land given away, etc, etc, your answer is

"Nuh uh"

Maybe then you can explain how the FS/BLM don't have budgets, yet Utah magically has a pile of cash waiting for when it takes over.

Rob Bishop is the head of the FS/BLM. Zinke works for him. The funding comes from him. He is the boss. If Utah Republicans care so much about public lands why is their senior congressman, starving them to death? And why isn't any other Republican addressing it? And yeah, no one cares what the dems are doing because Utah is run solely by repubs.

When was the speach by any republican outlining how under Utah control the public lands will be locked in a trust, guaranteeing them never to be sold?

Its a daily barrage when the legislative session is in of schemes to compromise public lands, trade them off, sell them, open further development,

But, I guess "nuh uh, false narrative" must be true.

Patagonia spoke at BHA, so that's THE REAL ISSUE.

Vortex, Kimber, Leupold, Rinella, Newberg, Warren, they all just sold out, all pizzed away all their work, money, efforts because Yvon is just that spell binding.







From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
Keep throwing out the straw man arguments. They are easier to use than facts. Keep putting arguments in others mouths so you can ?prove? they are wrong.

Bringing SITLA into the discussion shows how little you understand this issue, or how little you care about facts. Either way, the result is the same.
 
>Keep throwing out the straw man
>arguments. They are easier to
>use than facts. Keep putting
>arguments in others mouths so
>you can ?prove? they are
>wrong.
>
>Bringing SITLA into the discussion shows
>how little you understand this
>issue, or how little you
>care about facts. Either way,
>the result is the same.
>



Still waiting for you to educate me.

Who is the straw man?

SITLA. is the perfect example. Utah was given and under the enabling act(the same act that gave feds control to start with). Its to help fund schools. PRIOR TO PROPERTY TAXES. Utah sells it twice yearly, 54% of what they had they have burned. They were given land, they aren't forced to sell it they do so willingly. Somehow you think if they get more land they won't continue selling it? Exactly how will Utah pay for fire suppression, trail management, etc, etc.? Where is their management proposal? Where is any evidence they would do anything different than what they do yearly?

A simple spread sheet shows financially it doesn't work.

I know, "nuh uh", or " your dumb", but numbers don't lie. Past history is an indicator of future performance.

That's not even taking into account that Utah signed away its rights on public land when it lobbied for statehood.







From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
I'm not a backpacker. I own atvs. I have younger kids and older relatives who shouldn't be locked out because they require roads to access land. I'm pro grazing, pro mining, and I drive and heat with petroleum. I'm not a huge fan of the antiquities act. I own guns, drive trucks, am fiscally conservative.

Having said all that,I'm a BHA member. Because I spend 75-100 days in any year on public land.

We can argue about roads, sheep, cows, etc etc down the road. But those arguments can only take place if WE own the land.

If we lose it, Andarko doesn't care about atv.
The Wilks bros could care less about buck/doe ratios. All these issues die if the land is gone.

The republicans suck on this issue. But if you think Hillary or Bernie won't just be a different suck that's illogical.

We as hunters are a shrinking minority. We are gonna need help. We can either take advantage of help when its offered, or we can have righteous indignation.





From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
Hoss,

Google SITLA.

SITLA's codified mission is to make as much money as possible on lands it oversees, which goes into a trust fund to make even more money, a tiny bit of which goes to fund public education. That single-minded mission, which does not allow SITLA to consider the long-term value of any parcel of institutional trust lands, should be changed by the Utah Legislature.

That need for change ? advocated on this page and by others ? was re-emphasized last week when SITLA announced it planned to lease parcels of land in the Book Cliffs forhe 98,000 eastern-Utah acres in question may, indeed, have stores of fossil fuels under the surface, but its greatest sustainable value is to recreationists, particularly hunters. The revenue generated by people visiting the area to hike, fish and hunt doesn't go directly into SITLA's coffers, so, to that body, it doesn't count.

But preserving and managing wildlife habitat brings in millions to state government as well as protecting traditional rights of hunters.

Even Republicans Gov. Gary Herbert and Rep. Rob Bishop, in a move that may have surprised a good many people because of their penchant for supporting ever more drilling on public lands, called upon SITLA to back off its leasing plan in the Book Cliffs. They sided with hunting groups but also rightly pointed out that SITLA's secret dealings with energy developer Anadarko left Utahns who own the land out of the discussion.

Herbert offered a reasonable alternative: that SITLA offer to transfer at least some of that land to the federal government in exchange for parcels elsewhere that would be more suitable for oil exploration and would not ruin the roadless areas prized by those seeking trophy elk. oil exploration and drilling.

Hoss,
Since you like to bash SFW. SITLA wanted to make a lot of their school trust land a private CMU, charging 10K per elk tag. Restricting access to the average hunter. SFW, DWR, and the governor stopped this years ago. That is why we have had the Book Cliff SITLA lands open to public hunters the past 15 years.

Go ahead carry on. Keep bashing.
 
Hoss, you dimwit, I don't want the state to control public lands any more than you do. Try to keep up.

And finally, SITLA lands are NOT public lands. They are trust lands. They are very different, hence, why they don't belong in the discussion. You?re wrong, factually. Not just opinion, it's actually written into the law. Educate yourself and come back. Drop the political rhetoric bull crap. Then we can talk.

Or, keep talking about non-public SITLA lands, telling me how I want state control of public lands, and how I'm an SFW supporter. Either way, your choice if you want to show your ignorance beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-24-18 AT 11:58AM (MST)[p]There is no law stating Utah HAS to sell it, only that they must maximize profits when they do. The reason SITLA is relevant is that its controlled by State land boards. When the States take control the State land boards would control it. LAND CONTROLLED BY STATE LAND BOARDS IS NOT PUBLIC LAND. You need only go look at each states websites to see that. We saw this attempt in Nevada a few years back. Utah has a good agreement on hunting, camping fishing, state land board controlled lands. Some states don't.

Simple fact is if your baseball team sucks you change the management, you don't sell the team.

A Utahn is the chair of NR. If FS/BLM sucks, its his job to fix it. If its broke its his job to fix it. If its short revenue, its his job. But we will spend time complaining about a speach from a hippy, yet re elect the guy who is failing at his job.

Utah will be forced to sell land because of economics. The forces behind transfer know that, and are planning for it. The rest of the "constitutionalist", "federalist" bs is just spin. When Utah(or other public land state) lobbied for statehood, they agreed to give control of public land to the feds. It was a condition of statehood, and they did so willingly.


From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
Seriously Vanilla, now you've stooped to calling people a dimwit? You're better than that.

You then tell Hoss, "And finally, SITLA lands are NOT public lands. They are trust lands. They are very different, hence, why they don't belong in the discussion. You?re wrong, factually. Not just opinion, it's actually written into the law. Educate yourself and come back."

______________

However, SITLA does belong in the Transfer of Public Lands discussion as SITLA is literally 'written into the law' as well...


(2) If the state transfers title to any public lands with respect to which the state receives?title under Subsection (1)(b), the state shall:
?
(a) retain 5% of the net proceeds the state receives from the transfer of title; and

?(b) pay 95% of the net proceeds the state receives from the transfer of title to the United States.

(3) In accordance with Utah Constitution Article X, Section 5, the amounts the state retains in accordance with Subsection
(2)(a) shall be deposited into the permanent State School Fund.

I could provide a dozen examples of Utah politicians saying they support the land grab to raise money for education. Now you know what they're talking about, selling public land and giving the proceeds to SITLA.

PS. Huntin50, SFW did a good job opposing Chaffetz and SITLA. Now if they would oppose the land grab, we'd really be on the same page.

Grizzly

-----------------------------------------
"This is a classic case of a handful of greedy fly fishermen getting too greedy." -Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as told to KUTV

"It's time to revisit the widely accepted principle in the United States and Canada that game is a public resource."
-Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as quoted in Anchorage Daily News
 
Are apples oranges or are oranges apples and if the apples that are not oranges can we sell the the apples that are not oranges. If all the apples become mine can i turn the apples into oranges so then i can sell the apples.
Make a real difference help get someone elected that can help fight the good fight.
 
>Hoss, you dimwit, I don't want
>the state to control public
>lands any more than you
>do. Try to keep up.
>
>
>And finally, SITLA lands are NOT
>public lands. They are trust
>lands. They are very different,
>hence, why they don't belong
>in the discussion. You?re wrong,
>factually. Not just opinion, it's
>actually written into the law.
>Educate yourself and come back.
>Drop the political rhetoric bull
>crap. Then we can talk.
>
>
>Or, keep talking about non-public SITLA
>lands, telling me how I
>want state control of public
>lands, and how I'm an
>SFW supporter. Either way, your
>choice if you want to
>show your ignorance beyond a
>reasonable doubt.

Learn to read. Post #62 I said the $fw shot wasn't aimed at you.

I never said SITLA was public land. I said the same structure Utah uses to sell it would be followed.

Further, your great at saying what your not,how about what your for?

Last, you might not like the political aspect, but only one party is pushing this.




From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
>Are apples oranges or are oranges
>apples and if the apples
>that are not oranges can
>we sell the the apples
>that are not oranges. If
>all the apples become mine
>can i turn the apples
>into oranges so then i
>can sell the apples.
>Make a real difference help get
>someone elected that can help
>fight the good fight.

That we agree on. But I do live in Utah, a one party state.

What's worse is a state built on public land is the state where this crap is fueled. I've talked to all the sen candidates, they are in lockstep.

Jenny Wilson didn't respond.

Gonna "keep hammering"(tm Cam Hanes).


From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

5D8E001D-609C-4D37-9D0A-A4F16225F1DC.jpeg
IMG_20160301_230755.jpg
20170909_102333.jpg
Big Buck Down!
392E31C2-0F71-4234-AE12-D30EBF35B93F.jpeg
skyline3.png
Resized_20201001_181955.jpg
1113201335_HDR.jpg
IMG_1687.jpeg
IMG_0118.jpeg
9B790D4F-48CE-4CF3-8425-D5B25F9BB98B.png
Big Bull Elk for StraightSix
Back
Top Bottom