Pro Fed land-grab outdoor retailers

[Marnoot]

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=43186867&nid=148&title=retailers-ramp-up-threat-for-big-outdoors-show-to-leave-utah

So, Utah is unhappy with federal land-grabbing (gee I wonder why . . .

)


So now in response to Utah pushing back on the land-grabbing, several outdoor retailers are threatening to pull out of the big outdoor retailer trade show that happens in Salt Lake City annually. Apparently only letting the feds control 66% of our land is "anti-recreation" and "anti-environment", and the state should continue to cede more land every time a (D) president needs to polish-up his "environmental" creds or stick it to (R) voters.

Hope they don't let the door smack them in the rear on their way out . . .

[Ron]

Watermelons.

They don't even know they're watermelons.

Dumb-asses want to turn the chicken coop over to the pack of wolves, for protection.

I'm all for protection of sensitive ecological sites, natural wonders and old growth forest. But that doesn't describe the land mass the Fed controls out west. 

[DittoHead]

Utah is unhappy with federal land-grabbing
...
Utah pushing back on the land-grabbing

Maybe the article left out some relevant information, but isn't Utah attempting the land-grab at this point and the outdoor retailers are opposed to that?  The fed already owns the lands being discussed, right?

[Marnoot]

Maybe the article left out some relevant information, but isn't Utah attempting the land-grab at this point and the outdoor retailers are opposed to that?  The fed already owns the lands being discussed, right?

I phrased poorly. There are a couple ongoing interrelated issues. One is Utah pushing back on the existing federal lands, as you say, because 66%+ federal control is a bit nuts. So the grabbing of more land-area by the feds is mostly historical. The immediate issue that's sparking the retailer exit (rexit?) is Utah's opposition to the Bears Ears Monument designation Obama did while on his way out of office. While not an acquisition of more federal land, it is a significant increase of federal control over a sizeable area in the state; that is, a restriction on what can be legally be done on the land. What can you do if there's no more land to grab? Increase restrictions on the land you've already got.

The retailers' straw-man is that if the state gains control of lands, that the land will be full of oil derricks, fracking, etc.. The reality of it is that there would likely just be more state parks in sensitive/scenic/etc. wilderness areas, and yes, some development on land that doesn't meet those criteria.

[DittoHead]

Ok, fair enough. Being from a Midwestern state, it's an issue that I'm not terribly familiar with and to be honest I find it a bit hard to relate to. What little fed owned land we have around here is some of the best there is for hunting & backwoods camping and it's also reasonably well managed for commercial use where appropriate - I'd love to have more of it around here. State land is severely over restricted for recreational use and county land is hard to find and harder to get clear rules on public use. Really the only time I used to hear about that fed land in the west was in reference to going out shooting on BLM land and that was generally pretty positive. It's only now something I'm more aware of because of the Bundy incident and while I'm sure that awareness was one of their goals, that foolishness did absolutely nothing to endear me to their cause.

[Marnoot]

Yeah, the whole Bundy movement is very "sovereign citizen" and more than a bit far afield for me. I'm not diametrically opposed to the idea of federal lands, I enjoy recreation in national forests and parks. Reasoned arguments could be made both ways for state vs. federal control of specific, remarkable "national treasures" that make up many of the current national parks. Regardless of that argument, though, the sheer scale of it alone in the Western states is enough to be opposed to. The vast majority of federal land in Utah (and Nevada, and etc.) is not sensitive wilderness, popular recreation area, or strategic-resource-rich, it's just sage brush and dry hardpan. Not much argument can be made that the feds should control it, IMO.

[DittoHead]

the sheer scale of it alone in the Western states is enough to be opposed to. The vast majority of federal land in Utah (and Nevada, and etc.) is not sensitive wilderness, popular recreation area, or strategic-resource-rich, it's just sage brush and dry hardpan. Not much argument can be made that the feds should control it, IMO.

Yeah, I'm with you on that.

[Triphammer]

The original idea behind Fed Gov land was a good one. States were barely getting started, land claims could get pretty out of hand in a hurry. This way no one state, territory or influential business concern could do too much, the land belonged to all- equally. The FedGov view has changed in the last 15 or 20 years in that this is FED!!! LAND!!! you stay off.

[Ben]

The FedGov view has changed in the last 15 or 20 years in that this is FED!!! LAND!!! you stay off. If it's fun, it's illegal.

FTFY.

[MechAg94]

FTFY.

So no Thompson Contender pistols but other guns are okay?   

That list is a missing a whole lot of possible signs. 

[Ben]

So no Thompson Contender pistols but other guns are okay?  

That list is a missing a whole lot of possible signs.  

Hey, I only have so much time to spend entertaining you people.

[MechAg94]

So do all these retailers favor the FedGov taking over the rest of Utah and kicking out all the people?  I am trying to figure out why they are so upset and they suddenly want to take action.

[Marnoot]

So do all these retailers favor the FedGov taking over the rest of Utah and kicking out all the people?  I am trying to figure out why they are so upset and they suddenly want to take action.

The impetus is Utah pushing for a rescinding of the Bears Ears monument designation.

Sent from my LG-D851 using Tapatalk

[Ben]

So do all these retailers favor the FedGov taking over the rest of Utah and kicking out all the people?  I am trying to figure out why they are so upset and they suddenly want to take action.

What fed.gov actually wants to do at Bear's Ear (and elsewhere) is stuff like ban ATVs, horses, offroading to camp, hunting, shooting, firewood harvesting, etc. as part of "preserving the landscape". Given the retailers mentioned in the OP article, that's pretty much right up their alley. Most of them are higher end retailers catering to backpackers etc. They have little interest in protecting activities outside their user base. Being vocally in favor of use restrictions will sell $600 jackets.

http://www.arcteryx.com/product.aspx?country=us&language=en&gender=mens&collection=Whats_New&model=Beta-SV-Jacket

[DittoHead]

What fed.gov actually wants to do at Bear's Ear (and elsewhere) is stuff like ban ATVs, horses, offroading to camp, hunting, shooting, firewood harvesting, etc. as part of "preserving the landscape".

Which is perfectly appropriate in some places. Not being familiar with Bear's Ear I have no clue whether that's the case there (I'm guessing not?).
And at least around here (as I mentioned previously), keeping the land under fed control is the best way to protect those activities you mentioned. State land use is far more strict.

Given the retailers mentioned in the OP article, that's pretty much right up their alley. Most of them are higher end retailers catering to backpackers etc.

Yes, as far as companies advocating for their consumer base (and their bottom line) these retailers are probably not too far out of line with opposing these changes.

They have little interest in protecting activities outside their user base.

They're out to make a profit just like anyone else so I wouldn't expect otherwise.

[Hawkmoon]

Ok, fair enough. Being from a Midwestern state, it's an issue that I'm not terribly familiar with and to be honest I find it a bit hard to relate to. What little fed owned land we have around here is some of the best there is for hunting & backwoods camping and it's also reasonably well managed for commercial use where appropriate - I'd love to have more of it around here.

You haven't been paying attention under Democratic administrations. Even under Bill Clinton, they had the so-called "roadless initiative." That was a plan to take pristine wilderness areas that didn't have roads, and make them off-limits to any sort of mechanized ... anything. No Jeeps (which is how it affected me, I'm a Jeeper), no ATVs, no mountain bikes, no chain saws ... nothing. And no exceptions, which would mean that the elderly and those with physical impairments simply wouldn't be able to use those hundreds of thousands of acres of pristine wilderness. Only young, healthy backpacker types need apply.

Except -- have you ever flown over the western United States? There are actually very few areas that don't have some sort of dirt or gravel road or forest road going through them. So the answer of the "roadless initiative" people was to simply erase the existing roads from the maps. Instant abandonment -- and if you know anything about things like forest roads, if they are abandoned, they begin to erode almost immediately. The Dems aren't out to control these vast tracts of land for multi-use ... they want to exclude people from them as completely as they possibly can.

[DittoHead]

I dunno, maybe the feds have been pushing things in the wrong direction overall and it just hasn't happened in the areas I visit (national forests mostly). I guess my point is just that if all things were equal then more local control (state in this case) would be better. But they aren't all equal and some states are very strict so federal control ends up being MUCH less restrictive. In Utah that might not be the case at all, but I bet it is in California.

[Ron]

The trend hasn't been toward a "for the people" Teddy Roosevelt type land management but instead towards an Edward Abbey anti-human land management.

[Ben]

The trend hasn't been toward a "for the people" Teddy Roosevelt type land management but instead towards an Edward Abbey anti-human land management.

QFT.

In the past, at least there has been a choice between National Park style management and National Forest style management. In recent years the Forest Service and BLM have been pushing to emulate NPS style management.

The more rigid NPS management style is appropriate and correct for very special places that have been carefully vetted for their significance. Not so if you're going to apply it to all public land.

Even then,  I think Teddy would sadly shake his head at how NPS has evolved.

[KD5NRH]

Except -- have you ever flown over the western United States? There are actually very few areas that don't have some sort of dirt or gravel road or forest road going through them. So the answer of the "roadless initiative" people was to simply erase the existing roads from the maps. Instant abandonment -- and if you know anything about things like forest roads, if they are abandoned, they begin to erode almost immediately. The Dems aren't out to control these vast tracts of land for multi-use ... they want to exclude people from them as completely as they possibly can.

And yet lefty "adventurers" will be the first to scream when one of theirs gets stuck out there and rescue crews can't get in because the roads are gone.

[MechAg94]

I heard a while back that their were a few areas that were highly restricted by the Feds, but groups like The Sierra Club had some sort of exception to go into those areas.  Has anyone heard of that?

[Hawkmoon]

I heard a while back that their were a few areas that were highly restricted by the Feds, but groups like The Sierra Club had some sort of exception to go into those areas.  Has anyone heard of that?

That does sound vaguely familiar, and it would be completely in keeping with their elitist attitude that they know what's best for everyone, so THEY should be allowed in there, but the rest of us lowly plebians should not. They probably get asn exception by claiming they need access for "monitoring."

And to get in there, they probably drive in using those same roads that no longer "exist" because the Clinton crew erased them from the maps. The roads are (or were) still there, of course, but by removing the lines from the maps they were able to declare huge areas as "roadless," and therefore subject to draconian bans of almost every kind of use or recreation other than hiking and backpack camping.

[Marnoot]

And yet lefty "adventurers" will be the first to scream when one of theirs gets stuck out there and rescue crews can't get in because the roads are gone.

No, then the Utah taxpayers just get to pay extra to send in a helicopter. Seems like at least one of the DPS helicopters is in southern Utah pretty darn frequently during tourist season hoisting out idiots and corpses.

[Triphammer]

Clinton did that to us here in S. Az. his last day in office.  Made the tops of an entire mountain range wilderness area. Called them "Sky Islands" No one can enter, except by foot. The mountains on the border so that's how the couple thousand illegals a year get though, just like they always did, on foot.
Now, not even Border Patrol can drive in there.

[Marnoot]

The Outdoor Retailers trade show has officially announced they won't return to Utah over the issue (http://www.ksl.com/?sid=43209757&nid=148&title=outdoor-retailers-announces-it-will-not-include-utah-in-future-outdoors-show). Colorado is courting them hard. Denver would certainly be a better fit for their politics . . .