Earlier this week outdoor brand Patagonia announced that they will not participate in Outdoor Retailer markets held in Salt Lake City Utah due to the states opposition to the establishment of new national parks by the outgoing Obama administration. As you know from our coverage, OR consists of two seasonal markets which are the largest outdoor recreation tradeshows in North America.
Like Patagonia, Arc’teryx opposes Utah’s position on this matter. We expect more brands to withdraw from OR. In fact, OR itself has notified Salt Lake City of its desire to move the twice a year show to another venue outside of Utah.
Arc’teryx published the following statement on their corporate blog.
COMPANY FOLLOWS PATAGONIA’S MOVE AS PRESSURE BUILDS FOR UTAH’S GOVERNMENT TO SUPPORT PROTECTION OF PUBLIC LANDS AND PROTECT WILD SPACES
Arc’teryx, a company that has long supported preservation of wild spaces, formally announces today its withdrawal from Outdoor Retailer in Salt Lake City, Utah due to the state’s efforts to rescind protection of Bears Ears National Monument and other public lands. The company stands in support of Patagonia’s move to leave Outdoor Retailer in Utah and is following suit. Funds that would have been spent to attend Outdoor Retailer in 2017 will be reallocated to the Conservation Alliance’s new Public Lands Defense Fund.
“The Outdoor Industry has an obligation to protect the wild places that are important to our consumers. Arc’teryx is a member of the outdoor industry’s Conservation Alliance. Since 2014, we’ve been part of the efforts to protect Bears Ears, supporting local grassroots organizations working on a legislated solution. More recently Arc’teryx has helped to fund Friends of Cedar Mesa and Utah Dine Bike Yah, as they work on a national monument designation. I was proud to join my peers in the outdoor industry in sending a letter to President Obama asking him to protect this landscape in Southern Utah, which is cherished by our community of climbers, hikers and outdoors enthusiasts. Protecting public lands for future generations is a critical part of our brand values and we will use our influence in a way that is consistent with those values.” – Jon Hoerauf, president of Arc’teryx
On March 6thth Jon Hoerauf will head to Washington DC with the Conservation Alliance and 21 other outdoor industry leaders to meet with key Congressional offices and representatives of the new Administration. The goal of this trip is to encourage all elected officials, regardless of political affiliation, to take action to protect important lands and waterways – including Bears Ears National Monument.
Arc’teryx will also be increasing its funding commitment to the Conservation Alliance by $150,000 over the next three years to support the protection of Bears Ears and other public lands at risk.
Good riddance!
Ouch Utah.
The federal government, as of 2014, owned 66.5% of the land in Utah. Here is a link with a helpful map to show just how much land the federal government owns: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/10/15/almost-half-the-west-is-federally-owned-now-some-states-want-their-land-back/?utm_term=.331674dd7fe8
Which I mistakenly deleted, I’m not siding with Patagonia and Arc’teryx on this one.
Whoever created the map needs to do better research. It shows Indian reservations as federal land.
Military reservations, too. Not that reservations aren’t federal land, but they aren’t the federal land that are concerned here. Reservations generally aren’t recreation areas open to the public.
That’s correct that military reservations aren’t generally open to the public for obvious reasons. Yet that doesn’t remove from the fact that the federal government owns a staggering amount of land; particularly in the West.
So, whomever created the map is correct to include Indian, military and public lands as those are the 3 types of reserved federal lands per the federal government itself.
It is actually a major issue to these states. The Feds don’t pay property taxes, nor do they provide much law enforcement. So when they land from private hands, like out in Oregon the counties get a reduction in taxes often without any reductions in population nor services that they have to provide.
So if these brands want to be a douche about it, I am not going to shop them.
I’m in agreement with you.
Indian reservations ARE federal lands:
“The federal government holds title to the land in trust on behalf of the tribe.”
Lol, surprise surprise a bunch of Californians are mad that other states think they have a right to control land that Californians want to take affordable vacations to.
Wonder how dead bird will do when all the 3% operator posers stop buying 600 dollar tactical pants and jackets.
I don’t think they’ll notice.
The Norwegian government alone probably buys more arcteryx leaf stuff every year than the entire civilian LEAF line market do.
Not to mention the enourmously much bigger market that is for arcteryx non-leaf stuff and the other government customers of leaf.
I dont think they would even take notice of the sales decrease originating from a 3peniser boycott..
Arc’teryx is a canadian brand…
CWG, Federal Land is PUBLIC LAND. It belongs to all of us. If you look at history, when the feds give Public Land to the states to manage they end up selling most of it off because they can’t afford to manage it. Who do you think buys it? Not Joe citizen, it’s large corporations. Access is block and the PUBLIC loses access to it’s land however. Now if you have a beef with the way the feds manage public lands I’m with you. But if you like having public lands to hunt, fish, camp, and do countless other things on the last thing you should want is to have land given to the states.
I’m over political corporations like Arc’teryx who, like insufferable Hollywood, believe their world view an analogue to enlightenment. Thankfully Arc’teryx exists in a crowded market of equally good gear so bypassing their offerings very easy.
I know, right? Stupid outdoor clothing company opposing potential privatization of public lands! Besides, anything Obama does ,no matter how reasonable, we need to oppose!
^ my guess is you don’t live in the West. The federal government as a landowner seems to be more like a Section 8 renter… They don’t take care of what they have and they transfer tax dollars to benefit free riders. The lack of reasonable land use also shifts taxes onto the backs of locals who often have to bear higher public safety and transportation costs to support recreational users on tax-exempt federal lands.
The land debate has been simmering in the West for 40 years. The recent Oregon acquittal for the jack holes who occupied the BLM compound gives an idea of what they local neighbors of the U.S government think of the situation.
Topical to this issue, the Utahns feel they got railroaded by sore losers in an outgoing administration inventing new parks without adequate consultation. The same administration that approved a crude oil pipeline and then magically withdrew support. Patagonia and Arcteryx are playing to their market, but to me it looks like endorsement of an anti-democratic authoritarian government.
I’ll forego the Federal land debate…for the moment. But I gotta put in a good word for Section 8 renters. As a small-time landlord in military towns, I’ve found my Section 8 tenants to take better care of the property and be better behaved than military tenants, sad to say. The Sec 8 people have to jump thru hoops and a waiting list to get on the assistance program, and stay on their best behavior. Most are hard-pressed grandmothers doing their best to raise the offspring of messed-up parents.
The junior military tenants, all too often these past few years, come with an entitlement attitude, lack of accountability the moment off post, monster trucks parked on the lawn, and neglected huge-ass dogs shitting everywhere. 75% of the time the wives grab the kids and go home to mama, and I end up letting Joe out of the lease, before he can move in his buddies and truly trash the place! I now understand the origin of the worst military stereotypes. Our Army has some healing and fixin’ to do.
So, I haven’t read much about this so I am asking if you know. Does the latest land grab from the government basically kill the off-road activities around Moab?
buhuhu, i only like political corporations when they perfectly mirror my own personal political agenda, and totally disregard that coexisting with people of oposing and alternative views is what living in a democracy is really about..
ps, i dont think the market is crowded with brands equally as good as this one.
Hey Will, check this link out. You can scratch all these companies off your buy list also. Plus anything that uses Gore, Primaloft, and Schoeller fabrics. I guess “a crowded market of equally good gear so bypassing their offerings very easy.” isn’t going to be so easy is it? Educate yourself before you talk next time.
http://www.conservationalliance.com/members/
Isn’t this land the feds are taking over also where most of the water in the West is located?
Yawn,
Outdoor industry trade shows are in decline anyway. Most of Arc’teryx’s businesses has likely moved away from OR by now.
Everyone understands and likes to see Firearms manufacturers contributing to protecting and expanding our gun rights. It shouldn’t be too surprising to see an outdoor gear company looking to protect their consumers ability to get outdoors.
I live out west, own outdoor gear and would like to use it outdoors without trespassing on private land. It’s nice to see Arc’teryx and Patagonia recognizing their customer base values the ability to get out into the wilderness. Our National Forests and National Parks are an amazing part of this country. We should do more to preserve the great places that exist here.
Most IIIpers can’t fit in Arc’teryx’s athletic cut clothing anyway.
Dude.
Do you even know how much land is already under control of the federal Parks Service?
Also, what’s the point of adding more land when said Service could barely support the ones they already have.
And yes I can fit in their clothes. I don’t feel that being pompous about it elevates myself above others.
How gives a shit about Arcteryx?? Them and Patagonia are out of state idiots who just care about selling $400 jackets.
Aren’t these the same guys that are owned by AmerSports? You know, Solomon, Suunto, Atomic, Precor, Wilson, Louisville Slugger, et. al.! (Rhetorical question)
Guess where AmerSports is located?
Ogden, UT (20 miles N of SLC)
Wah wah wah waaaaaaaaah
He’s right, you know.
https://www.amersports.com/brands/
The cynic in me sees a cheap marketing stunt. And trade shows are not inexpensive.
So, this press release gets word-of-mouth loyalty purchases (“This company supports my worldview…and I can virtue signal with my purchase”) and they cut an expense that probably couldn’t be correlated with sales.
Bravo! Fucking so much win here. People on the internet doing research to comment on a click bait article and shutting it down.
I commend you gentlemen.
Actually I service Suunto devices and have been to training at their Ogden service center with a tour of the AmerSports facility. Research was not necessary.
What’s your excuse?
Virtue signaling.
Involving yourself in what are essentially political and legal disputes is sure to be a loser for a retailer. Land disputes with the federal government effect a large amount of the population in the west and many people will, rightly, identify with Utah. I dare say those people will outnumber others applauding this with fist in the air screaming “you go, federal government. Keep arbitrarily declaring large parts of our state under federal control without consultation or any discussion!” That’s before we get to other states and people who feel the 10th Amendment is being trampled in many ways. Oh yeah, and other people in say, industries like energy
Marcus,
The land doesn’t belong to the state so your comment about the feds “arbitrarily declaring large parts of our state under federal control without consultation or any discussion” is not true and straight retarded. There are small portions within these areas that do belong to the state or private ownership. However they stay that way and the federal designation of the surrounding Public Land doesn’t change that.
That was precisely my point. Which you evidently missed.
I am very familiar with the issue. I have family who have ranched and farmed lands impacted by these grabs and designations for over a century.
Yep, just reread it and still missed the part about how the land is Public Land and doesn’t belong to Utah. Who are you implying see’s this as “you go, federal government. Keep arbitrarily declaring large parts of our state under federal control without consultation or any discussion!”, just curious?
Good riddance! Poser left-wing elite gear anyway …..
What would constitute “real right-wing common” gear?
Whatever cheap knock off gear they can afford on sale at Wal-Mart.
A Canadian (foreign) company spending $150K over 3 three years to influence the US federal government. More foreign influence peddling…just what WE need.
Too many Made in the US boutique companies now rather then spending money on an over-priced dead bird.
My take on federal land grabs from the States regardless of the political label? Shouldn’t happen! Federal land grabs by the executive branch should require a 2/3s vote of both the House and Senate; a bi-partisan effort.
Really surprised at how many people here hate national parks and Arc’teryx all of a sudden. Is it *gasp* because the word ‘Obama’ is in the article?
You’re simply posting a straw man argument because you’re not refuting an actual argument that has been made thus far.
I don’t see any arguments. Just some butthurt folks who will still buy Arc anyway
Then you’re suffering from cognative dissonance.
Shouldn’t Patagonia and Arcteryx be more concerned about the laws of Singapore, Canada, and Vietnam etc?
Such hypocrites that they portray themselves as “earth friendly” when the manufacture in other countries because of the strict environmental regulations here in the U.S.A.
Anyone who knows about chlorine washing fabrics (such as they have utilized in the past) understands that they could never do such practices in the U.S.A.
Oh,
And what are the said environmental regulations in Canada? Can you please share your expertise?
I’m confused, what is Utah intending to do with the land? What is the Federal Gov intending to do with it?
The previous administration set aside Utah land for parks. Utah state government disagrees and is moving to reverse the policy. Arc’teryx feels that setting aside land for parks is a good thing and is backing out of the Utah trade show in protest.
I see, thanks.
Parks are good though, I wonder what “administration” is really needed? The less the better I believe? I don’t know the specific rules that apply to National Parks though.,
The issue isn’t National Parks, Monuments or, Forest but, BLM land. There’s hundreds of miles of BLM land that is nothing but sagebrush and grasses which ranchers lease from the Feds to allow their livestock to graze and roam. The Feds gets to collect all those fees and may or, may not reinvest those $$$ into those areas. Those states which have these wide swaths of BLM land, namely UT, NV, ID… are at issue with the fact that it’s their LE that has to patrol the surrounding roads, respond to any emergencies and none of the rights fees get invested back into those respective communities. While it’s easy to say that those Fed employees have to live in those areas, thus their $$$ do go back into the communities, the larger $$$ aren’t going into infrastructure improvement, education, public services, etc…things that the state can own and allocate, versus a bureaucrat back in D.C.
Put that way, that makes absolute sense.
The butthurt flows trough this comment section..
Seems like a lot of people here think that arcteryx will even be remotely phased by the non-continuing business of certain die hard anti(everything perceivably to the left of 3PeniserSpartans).
Arcteryx has an enourmous global market for their gear line, even the leaf stuff probably has bigger mil contracts abroad than in the US.
But obviously people want to boycott companies that try to take your liberties away, just remember to stop buying Apple products, Microsoft product, stop using Google and stop seeing movies made by the big Hollywood production firms etc etc, as all of these were amongst Hillarys top donors.
Get your head out of your asses, if you decide to boycott Arc because of this thing, chances are big you were not a customer of theirs to begin with.
Your loss..
And with all that money, almost a billion I believe, donated to and spent by Hillary, she still lost.
It is quite apparent many of the posters here have zero clue where Bears Ears is and the relevancy of it in the culture that holds it close. A culture and people here long before any white immigrants or even tribalism between tribes. I am not saying, nor do I believe, that any gov agency will protect the Bears Ears monument, but Utah has to do something about it. Other than slating it for the “gentile” communities of SE Utah that the State of Utah deems unworthy of Mormon money. Issues pertaining to Bears Ears is a local issue to me, even as a Coloradoan living in the 4 corners. In the end, the Feds don’t give a damn, the State of Utah has deemed it un-Mormon, two outdoor companies are not going to go bankrupt lining politician pockets to keep it a place for Americans to visit and Americans are too invested in society to give a shit.
Please elaborate, as I think you’ve touched on an issue that a lot of people either don’t know about, are missing or, ignoring. In the sound-bite news culture that currently exists, there’s a lot of gray-area that is missed. Land rights in the West is and has been a contentious issue that affects a broad-range of citizens and the revenue streams of those States where these areas exist.
The current narrative that is out there is: the Right hates public land and they want to rape and pillage it all for their corporate masters, the Left is all land should be made public (i.e. Federal) and needs to be guarded and protected, even from human use if need be. Somewhere in the middle of all that, is a variety of issues that aren’t being talked about, explored or, revealed. If you’re living in that region…what are those micro issues?
I’m going to buy some Patagonia and Arcteryx before my next deployment. Happy to see them standing up for what’s important.
So, thought experiment… Why doesn’t Arcteryx and Patagonia partner up and BUY some land to set aside as a park?
Or do we need government to solve problems, in the most mediocre fashion, for us at every turn?
Weird…
Because having it as federal lands means it is held in trust for the American people, for which there is an established safeguard, an established method to develop, and management objectives which mandate that the public weigh in, giving a voice and direction to America’s public lands.
Having two companies that are pro outdoor recreation would at first blush seem ideal; but what happens when the company lawyers decide that carrying a firearm would be prohibited, or shooting on the land is prohibited or motorized activity is prohibited, or the land is set to be sold? You have no recourse, just as you would if the land were held by any other private entity.
On federal lands, changes like that require a public process (web comment, mail comment or public testimony at scoping meetings), by which you may direct the management. Failing that, if the activity is prohibited and is not based in solid legal standing, the potential of organized citizens bringing suit directs federal land managers more often than you will ever hear about on the news.
What Invictus said.
All good points. I would still rather see people / companies doing actionable things rather than employing others (Government) to do things for them.
Want parks, make parks.
Or take the John D. Rockefeller approach and buy thousands of acres of land and donate them to the government on condition that they become National Parks….
Lots of amazing places were saved by acquisition and donation.
So, I’m confused … It’s a bad thing for select wild spaces to be protected for all Americans to enjoy? It’s better to let a few people profit from developing them for their personal gain?
We’re not talking about setting aside all remaining space in the country here… parks are small and carefully chosen spaces. And it’s not as if the government is taking them away from us, it’s setting them aside for us, instead of letting them get taken away by someone who wants to put a Walmart and condos on it for their own gain.
The idea that some fat cat in a Cadillac getting a little richer by changing a forest into condos is better for America than letting us hike in it and enjoy the country blows my mind.
(Que backlash about federal lands.)
You pretty much nailed it. Some people just hate the government so much they don’t educate themselves on what happens when you give public land to the states to control. I live in a western state and have serious issues with how the feds manage the land, but the last thing I want is public land to land in the hands of the state who will eventually sell it and I’ll end being blocked from it forever.
Precisely… States are less likely to protect it from development, and once it’s developed, we (the taxpayers of the United States) forever lose it to private use. Condos never become a beautiful wilderness again.
Well, short of the zombie apocalypse. But I doubt I’ll be hiking for fun then.
I have three ArcTeryx jacket and three Patagonia jackets plus numerous pants and other various and sundry items from both. When my shit wears out, I will only buy OR and Helly Hansen. I’m tired of the political shit. Sell your stuff to people who want to buy it, quit trying to be a bunch of social justice warrior faggots!
So let me get this straight, a company standing up for the protection of PUBLIC LAND so all Americans can enjoy and use it including future generations makes them “social justice warrior faggots”? Do you have any idea how many companies in this industry donate money for the purpose of protecting Public Lands so you have place to hunt, shoot, fish, camp, hike, and so on?
By the way Helly Hansen is a donating member of Conservation Alliance also so you can scratch them off your list. Go check this link below out, you will probably have to throw away half the gear/clothing you own including anything that uses fabric from Gore, Primaloft, and Schoeller, guess you’ll have to scratch OR off your list also. You’ll also have to ditch most the footwear you probably have. Then go check to see if any of the firearm companies you buy from donate money to preserve public land for hunting.
Your post makes you sound like an uneducated fool.
http://www.conservationalliance.com/members/
As a Utahn from a ranching family with experience in the outdoor industry I am surprised by some of these responses. Growing up I always heard rumblings about the “feds” and during my seven tours in Afghanistan I frequently heard guys complain about the federal government. However, my friends from Texas are always jealous that I can take off on my dirt bike, or shoot out to 1000 yards, or hunt deer and elk all over my state. This is all due to our access to public (federal) land.
When the monument was declared I did some research. Cattle grazing will continue unchanged in the monument. I am currently unclear about hunting, which is of primary importance to me, so I won’t comment on that here. There are no elk in the Bears Ears in the lower zone between the Henrys and the Lasals. However, the recent attempt by Jason Chaffetz to transfer federal lands to state lands was met with much resistance and he withdrew his bill. Hunters and organizations like Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and, more recently, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers have been instrumental in protecting public lands. So it seems appropriate that Patagonia and Arcteryx would also move to protect land in a move sure to be popular with most of their customers.
When Obama (can I say his name, or is like Voldemort, “he who must not be named”?) made Bears Ears into a monument it only reclassified already federal land. There was no “land grab”. Private and state lands will stay that way. Sustainable tourism will provide more for the local communities economically than the boom-and-bust cycles of mining and gas which extract most of the money from the area as well. And, for what it is worth, the inhabitants with the longest history in the region were very happy about the declaration of the monument. So, in my estimation, only rich men cheer when land is privatized.
I see a ton of folks here begging and crying for the feds to save some land for them to visit. If Utah doesn’t want you to visit, that’s 100% Utah’s call. It’s sad and shameful that the federal government has stolen so much of so many states sovereignty but it’s downright appalling to see that so celebrated.
I still cant find anything in Article 1 Section 8 giving the power to manage a states land to the federal government.
Tremis, the land doesn’t belong to the state of Utah, it was federal land before there was a state of Utah. I guess you prefer a country where only the rich can do things like hunt, fish, and have a place to shoot guns without having to pay a private companies range fees. Besides that, it looks like you feel Utah has the right to restrict the travel of other US citizens who want to enter the state. In this country we don’t have to ask permission to travel from state to state. It’s not “Utah’s call” if I decided to visit Utah or not. It’s time to educate yourself past Article 1 section 8.
Why are any libnut, safe space, flag burning commies even reading SSD? You people need to go protest on an interstate somewhere then go back to mommies house. LOL
Despite knowing it’s just bait, I’ll fall for it and offer this… without trying to follow how saving land for Americans is flag burning “libnut” and other random buzzwords.
It’s a reminder that you can fight and die for your country alongside people who don’t agree with your politics.
Thank you for your appreciation of our service. I’ll presume you’ve done the same and thank you for it too.