Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 95
  1. Back To Top    #61
    Ultimate VIP Member
    Kurtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Mobridge,Sd
    Posts
    4,399
    NDA Points
    61,825
    NDA Level
    100
    Report Entries
    10
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 4,470
    Given: 1,564
    Classifieds
    1

    Quote Originally Posted by ndlongshot View Post
    Lots of sportsmen's group are both sides of this issue, which displays how controversial it is.

    In these instances, hunting and fishing were lumped into the same group as oil/wind energy development and we were told we impact the resource. Those wilderness areas have been hunted for generations and USED by sportsman. Monument status put us out and put those acres into more protection, more in line with a national park. National parks are great, but I sure would love to hunt in them.....

    With responsible use, I believe this was the right decision (to overturn) and I disagree with BHA on this one. And Patagonia. Didnt they take a stance on standing rock as well? Maybe i'm wrong. But if so, F those guys.
    A quick search and you are right


    https://twitter.com/patagonia/status/824047397105991684
    poses significant threats to the Standing Rock Sioux

    1 Not allowed!
    "Keep Hammering". Cam Hanes

  2. Back To Top    #62
    Premium Member
    Bfishn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    716
    NDA Points
    6,906
    NDA Level
    35
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 786
    Given: 154
    Classifieds
    2
    Patagonia does have a new industrial hemp workwear line. They claim the hemp is 25% more abrasion resistant than duck cotton(Carhartt) and softer as well. Maybe some of you guys should go write some reviews on how well they work in the oil fields

    http://www.patagonia.com/workwear.html

    0 Not allowed!

  3. Back To Top    #63
    Silver Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    70
    NDA Points
    254
    NDA Level
    5
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 30
    Given: 8
    Quote Originally Posted by ndlongshot View Post
    Lots of sportsmen's group are both sides of this issue, which displays how controversial it is.

    In these instances, hunting and fishing were lumped into the same group as oil/wind energy development and we were told we impact the resource. Those wilderness areas have been hunted for generations and USED by sportsman. Monument status put us out and put those acres into more protection, more in line with a national park. National parks are great, but I sure would love to hunt in them.....

    With responsible use, I believe this was the right decision (to overturn) and I disagree with BHA on this one. And Patagonia. Didnt they take a stance on standing rock as well? Maybe i'm wrong. But if so, F those guys.
    Fuck Standing Rock. The USACE was responsible when they approved the river crossing. All the pieces were included in the EA to make a responsible determination of No Significant Impact. Had the EA not specified the maximim amound of oil being transported, incuded spill models, a geographical response plan, operation and maintenance manual, and a risk assessment; I would say SR would have reason to worry. What do you think?

    0 Not allowed!

  4. Back To Top    #64
    Premium Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    261
    NDA Points
    3,648
    NDA Level
    25
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 200
    Given: 221
    I think you misunderstood me.

    Anyone involved with the protest can kiss my ass. Including Patagonia if they were involved. I could have swore I saw something from them on that as well.

    Nothing wrong with that pipeline in my opinion. Drill baby Drill.

    - - - Updated - - -

    See the links below still on their website and youtube......They campaigned hard for standing rock, and donated clothes to the protesters.

    https://www.patagonia.com/blog/2016/12/we-have-work-to-do/

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VG4VBlhb_sU

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/this-land-is-your-land-patagonia-and-the-property_us_589c6ecee4b061551b3e07c5

    https://twitter.com/patagonia/status/794615504975593472?lang=en

    0 Not allowed!

  5. Back To Top    #65
    Premium Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    314
    NDA Points
    12,071
    NDA Level
    47
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 507
    Given: 353
    Patagonia products are great products and something like this isn't going to stop me from purchasing or using them. If you dig deep enough you'll find something you disagree with in every company. They're much more responsible than most companies and while I don't agree with them on this topic, their clothes last forever, much of their clothes are made from recycled materials, and they do all they can to make their manufacturing processes have the least impact on the environment. I don't give a shit how much Fox News, MSNBC, or CNN want to divide and polarize us over such little differences of opinion to ruin this great country. There needs to be voices on all sides of all issues and unless everything about a company is the opposite of what I believe in if they make good products I plan to buy them.

    2 Not allowed!
    NPAA #888

  6. Back To Top    #66
    Silver Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    70
    NDA Points
    254
    NDA Level
    5
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 30
    Given: 8
    Quote Originally Posted by ndlongshot View Post
    I think you misunderstood me.

    Anyone involved with the protest can kiss my ass. Including Patagonia if they were involved. I could have swore I saw something from them on that as well.

    Nothing wrong with that pipeline in my opinion. Drill baby Drill.

    - - - Updated - - -

    See the links below still on their website and youtube......They campaigned hard for standing rock, and donated clothes to the protesters.

    https://www.patagonia.com/blog/2016/...ve-work-to-do/



    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b061551b3e07c5

    https://twitter.com/patagonia/status...593472?lang=en
    Sorry. You mentioned responsible use and got me all fired up because everything was done responsibly.

    You obviously have a strong opinion. You must have read the EA. Nice.

    1 Not allowed!
    Last edited by 1833; 12-06-2017 at 09:48 AM.

  7. Back To Top    #67
    Premium Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    464
    NDA Points
    5,112
    NDA Level
    30
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 223
    Given: 0
    Classifieds
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by gonefshn View Post
    Patagonia products are great products and something like this isn't going to stop me from purchasing or using them. If you dig deep enough you'll find something you disagree with in every company. They're much more responsible than most companies and while I don't agree with them on this topic, their clothes last forever, much of their clothes are made from recycled materials, and they do all they can to make their manufacturing processes have the least impact on the environment. I don't give a shit how much Fox News, MSNBC, or CNN want to divide and polarize us over such little differences of opinion to ruin this great country. There needs to be voices on all sides of all issues and unless everything about a company is the opposite of what I believe in if they make good products I plan to buy them.
    You really don't have to dig very deep to find something you disagree with on Patagonia. They are more anti hunter than pro hunter and obviously have no common sense when it comes to the energy economy. Patagonia is not just like any other company as the are clearly coming out publicly on controversial issues. I will not support a company that is clearly against me and my values. Maybe your values align with theirs.....

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurtr View Post
    I don't know. I am a member but I don't like land Tawney what he has done before bha being part of the hfh debacle and what not. I like the idea but don't agree with all of their stand points. It's picking the lesser of two evils I guess. If a guy digs deep enough I am sure there is a reason not to like any group short of starting your own. I am not saying any one is a bad person for buying Patagonia just putting info out there with out trying to put my slant on it to much. It's nice to read stuff not laced with opinion so people can make their own mind up.

    - - - Updated - - -



    I think it is easier to name stuff made in America than not. I will start.

    Kifaru
    How does shrinking the size of these national monuments not a benefit to hunters. I would think creating these monuments took away public land accessibile to hunters.

    A person really needs to dig deeper into these organizations. Why would RMEF come out against the public land swaps to gain access to currently landlocked parcels. How does any of this landlocked public land benefit me when I cannot hunt it. I never realized how bad this issue was until I hunted in MT. More than 50% of the public land was not accessible! The RMEF has to explain to me how this is helpful!

    0 Not allowed!

  8. Back To Top    #68
    Premium Member

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    333
    NDA Points
    2,498
    NDA Level
    20
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 372
    Given: 78
    Quote Originally Posted by ndlongshot View Post
    Lots of sportsmen's group are both sides of this issue, which displays how controversial it is.

    In these instances, hunting and fishing were lumped into the same group as oil/wind energy development and we were told we impact the resource. Those wilderness areas have been hunted for generations and USED by sportsman. Monument status put us out and put those acres into more protection, more in line with a national park. National parks are great, but I sure would love to hunt in them.....

    With responsible use, I believe this was the right decision (to overturn) and I disagree with BHA on this one. And Patagonia. Didnt they take a stance on standing rock as well? Maybe i'm wrong. But if so, F those guys.
    That is 100% false information

    Do you have any idea what a national monument is? Because it very different than a national park.

    When national monuments are created all previous allowed uses are typically grandfathered in. Including hunting, oil and gas leases, mining, grazing, camping, and motorized vehicles.

    Bears Ear national monument currently has all of the above. It even has permitted uranium mine.

    1 Not allowed!
    Last edited by fnznfwl; 12-06-2017 at 06:29 PM.

  9. Back To Top    #69
    Premium Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    464
    NDA Points
    5,112
    NDA Level
    30
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 223
    Given: 0
    Classifieds
    1
    So what's did the national monument designation do for bears ear if you can still do all of those activities?

    0 Not allowed!

  10. Back To Top    #70
    Ultimate VIP Member
    Kurtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Mobridge,Sd
    Posts
    4,399
    NDA Points
    61,825
    NDA Level
    100
    Report Entries
    10
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 4,470
    Given: 1,564
    Classifieds
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Migrator Man View Post
    You really don't have to dig very deep to find something you disagree with on Patagonia. They are more anti hunter than pro hunter and obviously have no common sense when it comes to the energy economy. Patagonia is not just like any other company as the are clearly coming out publicly on controversial issues. I will not support a company that is clearly against me and my values. Maybe your values align with theirs.....

    - - - Updated - - -



    How does shrinking the size of these national monuments not a benefit to hunters. I would think creating these monuments took away public land accessibile to hunters.

    A person really needs to dig deeper into these organizations. Why would RMEF come out against the public land swaps to gain access to currently landlocked parcels. How does any of this landlocked public land benefit me when I cannot hunt it. I never realized how bad this issue was until I hunted in MT. More than 50% of the public land was not accessible! The RMEF has to explain to me how this is helpful!
    First where did I say anything about rmef? Second did you even read any thing I wrote. I said I don't agree with bha on everything this is one. Where has rmef came out against the land swaps? How many acres has rmef opened to the public?
    Quote Originally Posted by Migrator Man View Post
    So what's did the national monument designation do for bears ear if you can still do all of those activities?
    For being so adamant about this a quick Google search gives you the answers. It's a start to a national park then there are problems. Or like the nm in Colorado that allow nothing.

    0 Not allowed!
    "Keep Hammering". Cam Hanes

  11. Back To Top    #71
    Ultimate VIP Member
    johnr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Dickinson
    Posts
    6,520
    NDA Points
    74,670
    NDA Level
    100
    Report Entries
    1
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 7,188
    Given: 6,330
    Classifieds
    1
    Is this the dirty Harry reed fiasco?
    Is this the one he created and loaded his, and his family's bank accounts with?

    0 Not allowed!

  12. Back To Top    #72
    Ultimate VIP Member
    Ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,193
    NDA Points
    50,759
    NDA Level
    99
    Report Entries
    8
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 2,179
    Given: 1,791
    Classifieds
    3
    Is that policy on RMEF to oppose land swaps? I know they opposed one land swap because the Wilkes brothers wanted to swap shitty land for prime elk habitat. It would have provided access but to nothing great.

    0 Not allowed!
    Hunting is conservation.

  13. Back To Top    #73
    Ultimate VIP Member
    espringers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Devils Lake
    Posts
    2,078
    NDA Points
    14,090
    NDA Level
    51
    Report Entries
    4
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,593
    Given: 1,043
    Classifieds
    1
    Finally checked into this thread just cause I couldn't imagine why there were 70 posts on boycotting Patagonia. Now I know. Fwiw, fbo probably hasn't had 70 posts in the last 2 months.

    2 Not allowed!

  14. Back To Top    #74
    Ultimate VIP Member
    Kurtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Mobridge,Sd
    Posts
    4,399
    NDA Points
    61,825
    NDA Level
    100
    Report Entries
    10
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 4,470
    Given: 1,564
    Classifieds
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
    Is that policy on RMEF to oppose land swaps? I know they opposed one land swap because the Wilkes brothers wanted to swap shitty land for prime elk habitat. It would have provided access but to nothing great.
    Those guys bought a bunch in Idaho and shut it down. Think closed some access. I know the people I talked to out there didn't like them one bit

    0 Not allowed!
    "Keep Hammering". Cam Hanes

  15. Back To Top    #75
    Ultimate VIP Member
    Ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,193
    NDA Points
    50,759
    NDA Level
    99
    Report Entries
    8
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 2,179
    Given: 1,791
    Classifieds
    3
    Imagine how much they’ll buy if public land transfers go through.

    0 Not allowed!
    Hunting is conservation.

  16. Back To Top    #76
    Ultimate VIP Member
    espringers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Devils Lake
    Posts
    2,078
    NDA Points
    14,090
    NDA Level
    51
    Report Entries
    4
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,593
    Given: 1,043
    Classifieds
    1
    Too late ^^^

    0 Not allowed!

  17. Back To Top    #77
    Ultimate VIP Member
    Kurtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Mobridge,Sd
    Posts
    4,399
    NDA Points
    61,825
    NDA Level
    100
    Report Entries
    10
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 4,470
    Given: 1,564
    Classifieds
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by espringers View Post
    Too late ^^^
    What do you mean

    0 Not allowed!
    "Keep Hammering". Cam Hanes

  18. Back To Top    #78
    Ultimate VIP Member
    espringers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Devils Lake
    Posts
    2,078
    NDA Points
    14,090
    NDA Level
    51
    Report Entries
    4
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,593
    Given: 1,043
    Classifieds
    1
    Pretty sure millions will eventually be given to the states out west. They will be sold. The end to the checkerboards is a welcome proposal. But, it won't end there.

    0 Not allowed!

  19. Back To Top    #79
    VIP Member

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    1,119
    NDA Points
    5,641
    NDA Level
    31
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 741
    Given: 277
    Patagonia is a member of Conservation Alliance:

    Organizational History

    The Conservation Alliance is a group of outdoor industry companies that disburses its collective annual membership dues to grassroots environmental organizations. We direct our funding to community-based campaigns to protect threatened wild habitat and outdoor recreation. The Alliance was founded in 1989 by industry leaders REI (Obama's pick Sally Jewel for Dept. of the Interior came from REI) Patagonia, The North Face, and Kelty, who shared the goal of increasing outdoor industry support for conservation efforts. We now have more than 200 member companies, and plan to disburse $1.8 million in 2017.Since its inception in 1989, the Alliance has contributed more than $18 million to grassroots conservation groups throughout North America. The results of our funding have been remarkable. Alliance funding has helped save more than 50 million acres of wildlands; protect 2,991 miles of rivers; stop or remove 29 dams; designate five marine reserves; and purchase 12 climbing areas. We follow a rigorous grant proposal review process that ensures our grants go to organizations that can succeed given the necessary financial resources. Click here for a list of our grantees.
    These clothing outlets along with Keen shoes lend their support/empower the fedgov to preserve places like Owyhee Canyon lands in Malheur County Oregon. 2.5 million acres. All stake holders will have input. Native Americans, recreationists, local governments, fire districts etc. Of course grazing will be grandfathered in as it is PERMITTED at the time of the designation. Key word here....PERMIT.

    A permit is like a license and when it comes to public land it is a social license. If your off road driving or high powered rifle isn't part of the "shared goal" of the Conservation Alliance, your social license will be revoked. Of course it isn't going to happen overnight. Sportsmen would raise hell. But like seat belt laws you will learn to roll over with time. Change is always about a slow steady pressure applied.

    0 Not allowed!

  20. Back To Top    #80
    Premium Member

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    333
    NDA Points
    2,498
    NDA Level
    20
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 372
    Given: 78

    Quote Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
    Imagine how much they’ll buy if public land transfers go through.
    Exactly what is going to happen.

    If you think these assholes who are pushing for states control of public lands give a flying shit about your access to hunt/fish/camp you are sadly mistaken.

    0 Not allowed!

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


About Nodak Angler

    NodakAngler is a community of outdoors enthusiasts. Our primary focus is to provide a great place for North Dakota sportsmen to gather, discuss, and participate. All are welcome.

Business & Contact

Follow us on

Facebook Instagram Twitter