Patagonia boycotts Outdoor Retailer show in support of Bears Ears...

The boycott is getting national attention: money.cnn.com/2017/02/11/ne…

Lots of half and miss information on here. The first piece of Patagonia clothing I bought was in 1997 when I lived in Chattanooga I had no idea or concern about their ethics. All I knew was they made bomb gear. 8 years ago I moved just north of Ventura ca and later discovered the company was based out of there. I am an environmental contractor and do many project each year that help save this planet that are part to fully funded by Patagonia. They don't broadcast to the world all their donations yet they still make them. It is a good ethical company that is doing more to make a real difference than any other company I have come into contact with.
Everyone in textiles for any length of time will find a less than desirable situation with how their products are being made or the method the materials are being made. Patagonia now has people in place that visit every part of their process and raises the bar. From purchasing equipment for safer dying to setting a tone for the way labor is treated. The way they work with athletes should change the relationship many companies have with their "sponsored" representitives.

While I am all for taking a stand via direct action, I am unclear what the direct action is in the case of the boycott of the OR show.

I agree with REI CEO Jerry Stritzky completely in that what seems lost is an opportunity for the industry to gather in one place and really put their collective voice into something bigger than a simple boycott. That seems like an awful lot to lose for some token action which "raises awareness". I think peoples awareness is up, and I think people are more interested in taking more decisive steps, and the OR show would be a great opportunity to decide how to do so in a collective and organized fashion.

DanielHart wrote:Lots of half and miss information on here. The first piece of Patagonia clothing I bought was in 1997 when I lived in Chattanooga I had no idea or concern about their ethics. All I knew was they made bomb gear. 8 years ago I moved just north of Ventura ca and later discovered the company was based out of there. I am an environmental contractor and do many project each year that help save this planet that are part to fully funded by Patagonia. They don't broadcast to the world all their donations yet they still make them. It is a good ethical company that is doing more to make a real difference than any other company I have come into contact with. Everyone in textiles for any length of time will find a less than desirable situation with how their products are being made or the method the materials are being made. Patagonia now has people in place that visit every part of their process and raises the bar. From purchasing equipment for safer dying to setting a tone for the way labor is treated. The way they work with athletes should change the relationship many companies have with their "sponsored" representitives.

Are they donating anything more than what the cap is for the tax write-off that comes with it? Almost every company I know of does this.

JNE wrote:While I am all for taking a stand via direct action, I am unclear what the direct action is in the case of the boycott of the OR show. I agree with REI CEO Jerry Stritzky completely in that what seems lost is an opportunity for the industry to gather in one place and really put their collective voice into something bigger than a simple boycott. That seems like an awful lot to lose for some token action which "raises awareness". I think peoples awareness is up, and I think people are more interested in taking more decisive steps, and the OR show would be a great opportunity to decide how to do so in a collective and organized fashion.

Who's to say they can't still unite and form a plan together? This is the 21st century, it's possible to communicate with others across long distances. All they're doing is boycotting a huge revenue generator for a state that is just going to wipe its ass with OR after it lets mining and oil defecate all over land.

eli poss wrote: Who's to say they can't still unite and form a plan together? This is the 21st century, it's possible to communicate with others across long distances. All they're doing is boycotting a huge revenue generator for a state that is just going to wipe its ass with OR after it lets mining and oil defecate all over land.

You under-value face to face interaction and the logistical advantages of physically having a large group of collaborators in one place. Also, in the eyes of Utah's policy makers, the OR revenue (both from the event as well as tourism) will be compared with oil and gas revenue, and the oil and gas will win that one every time, especially considering the significant numbers of outdoor recreation enthusiasts that will still show up in Utah pretty much no matter what happens.

JNE wrote: You under-value face to face interaction and the logistical advantages of physically having a large group of collaborators in one place. Also, in the eyes of Utah's policy makers, the OR revenue (both from the event as well as tourism) will be compared with oil and gas revenue, and the oil and gas will win that one every time, especially considering the significant numbers of outdoor recreation enthusiasts that will still show up in Utah pretty much no matter what happens.

TBH I was playing devil's advocate, I hate telecommunication and would much rather talk to people in person. However, just because they aren't going to the OR show doesn't mean they can't still meet somewhere to discuss an action plan. And while oil and gas may provide more money to Utah for a few years, maybe even a decade, the outdoor industry has the potential to be bringing revenue to Utah for many decades, potentially even centuries.

If you add up the dollars, the outdoor industry is much more profitable than extraction industry. If only the dumbasses in Utah were smart enough to look at a time scale longer than their time in office...

eli poss wrote: TBH I was playing devil's advocate, I hate telecommunication and would much rather talk to people in person. However, just because they aren't going to the OR show doesn't mean they can't still meet somewhere to discuss an action plan. And while oil and gas may provide more money to Utah for a few years, maybe even a decade, the outdoor industry has the potential to be bringing revenue to Utah for many decades, potentially even centuries. If you add up the dollars, the outdoor industry is much more profitable than extraction industry. If only the dumbasses in Utah were smart enough to look at a time scale longer than their time in office...

While I don't disagree about the relative sustainability of the revenue streams, I fear a policymaker would be tempted to see it from the perspective that they will be eliminating only precisely x% of the physically present outdoor recreation related resources and so future outdoor recreation related revenue will be decreased by likely at most x% by opening that area to resource extraction. In this way a policymaker could legitimately financially justify their actions with your concerns fully taken into account. Thus I think it is likely that they would write off that perspective, and that sticking to it would make one "out of touch" to them, thus making extra future work for the outdoor industry just to be listened to in the first place.

As far as discussing an action plan, you seem to be discounting the momentum and intensity with respect to the rate at which things happen that things can begin to take when you have everyone interacting face to face.

Pete Spri wrote: Are they donating anything more than what the cap is for the tax write-off that comes with it? Almost every company I know of does this.

http://fortune.com/2016/11/29/black-friday-2016-patagonia/

I've never even heard of a company doing this before... But your probably right, they are not doing anything new.

Josh Hutch wrote: fortune.com/2016/11/29/blac… I've never even heard of a company doing this before... But your probably right, they are not doing anything new.

Plenty of companies donate millions of dollars to charity. It all depends on the net and where they stand near the end of the year to determine tax bracket. Many times donating bumps you down, so you end up with a bigger net.

Who knows what Patagonia is actually giving when it is all said and done, but they sure aren't shy about tell everyone what they did?

I like their stuff, but no, I dont think they are any better than REI or any other outdoor company who supports conservation... but I do think they spray more than any other outdoor company.

Tim Lutz wrote:Jerry's blog is full of poor excuses

Such as? Also, poor in what way? Otherwise this statement is bombastic at best and divisive at worst.

Tim Lutz wrote:and REI's money is with USBank A major investor in DAPL sad!

For one, what does DAPL have to do with the Bears Ears? Does not DAPL reduce the demand for resources which would otherwise be extracted from Bears Ears, thus it's existence can be seen as a boon for the cause of protecting the Bears Ears?

Also, is there a possible world/future in which we get natural resources from neither transporting it via the DAPL or mining some part of the Bears Ears, and are still able to have the economic freedom to significantly or entirely reduce our military presence in the ME?

As far as our military presence in the ME goes, do you think this is a rational decision from a financial standpoint, or does it only make sense as a decision when no oil can be found elsewhere (which is how the world was believed to be when the geopolitics over there got set up in their contemporary framework), or when you take into account all of the religious contexts of that region and its importance to the Abrahamic religions?

Tim Lutz wrote:JNE REI is putting making money over making a stand for public lands...

Again, your all seeing sycophant self attempting to solipsize the existence of some right to make key decisions based upon ignorant and unfounded assumptions, facts, or claims. You clearly did not read, or you did read but failed to understand, the letter from REI's CEO which you keep bringing up.

Again with the unfounded statements. The letter clearly says that the thing to do is meet to figure out a way to make a more effective stand in order to achieve a better overall outcome than some "awareness raising" boycott will. This is the part you clearly don't understand.

As for "making money", how else do you expect your favorite retailers like Patagonia to have the finances to fight legal battles and other things related to their goals (or pay their bills), and thus how exactly are you helping them by trying to maximally prevent them from "making money" (the horror of the thought...) as you so desperately accuse REI and anyone else with the supposed audacity to defy your will and go to OR?

Lastly, while we are in to spelling it all out, remind us all again how boycotting the OR show will appeal to any policy makers as a demonstration of power. This has yet to be explained by anyone, including Patagonia. It seems to me the only power this has is the revenue loss from the OR show itself, which is a drop in the bucket.

Tim Lutz wrote:So have a 'conversation' somewhere other than SLC in July?

Sounds like an organizational nightmare all too easily solved by leaving OR in place.

I don't agree that a mass of people not showing up somehow beats everyone getting together at OR and using some of that time to stop by the governments offices, in person, to discuss these issues. I'm sure the same level of organization and letter writing can happen outside of OR, and OR adds another opportunity to organize and make action plans.

Now that some of your statements are no longer unfounded, we can all see the poor reasoning regarding the logical mechanics of the claims which back them up. Thanks, that is all I wanted :)

JNE, your use of the word

JNE wrote: sycophant

and your repeated false equivalencies totally outs you as a faux news a-holic. Language is an amusing tell. The only language jerk-off politicians speak is money, not hand-holding or talking it out as you suggest. There is no benefit from giving Utah their business as usual when they are making such poor long term choices for the outdoor industry. Utah needs a wake up call, this might not be it, but it could be a beginning. What does the outdoor industry have to lose by moving back to Vegas or Reno for a year?

Meeting at OR isn't ideal and company leaders of these larger entities aren't sitting in a booth slinging next seasons wears. Even if they were all in SLC this meeting wouldn't have the energy and attention it needs in that format. Those concerned enough to do something should hold a summit and show their ability to come together and make a plan to protect our lands. Our current government only sees money and that is the best way to motivate them.

Jack Quarless wrote:JNE, your use of the word and your repeated false equivalencies totally outs you as a faux news a-holic. Language is an amusing tell. The only language jerk-off politicians speak is money, not hand-holding or talking it out as you suggest. There is no benefit from giving Utah their business as usual when they are making such poor long term choices for the outdoor industry. Utah needs a wake up call, this might not be it, but it could be a beginning. What does the outdoor industry have to lose by moving back to Vegas or Reno for a year?

Lol. Sycophant is one of my favorite words to use in situations like this. I have been using it regularly in print for well over a year now, slightly before you saw it show up on CNN or any of their affiliates.

I also 100% agree that, without drastic changes in the way the government of Utah treats the outdoor industry, the OR show should move from Utah ASAP (so for 2018). I still maintain that having it at it's regular place and time this year will create more good than it will cause harm. It can't be worse than any other year that the thing was held in Utah and yet the outdoor industry got largely ignored by Utah's politicians (who's constituencies are interestingly largely not made up of outdoor enthusiasts, at least not ones who care about boycotts like the one proposed).

The outdoor industry provides a renewable economic engine. Whereas the extraction industry, will die once all the resources are gone. Can the two coexist? Only if strict regulations are maintained. History shows what happens when there are no controls.

To some, there is a moral imperative to avoid supporting your opposition or anything that violates your ethics, at all cost. Voting with our dollars is our "second vote". Why do you think that there is such an uproar from the conservatives over boycotts right now. Because they do have an effect.

hcn.org/articles/utahs-outd…

and The Who used the word "sycophant" in the early 80s....ha :)

I don't have the actual numbers, but my educated guess is that outdoor recreation brings in far more money into the overall economy. Think about all the different types of outdoor recreationalist that use these lands including tourist who just sightsee. They all bring in a lot of money to local businesses (hotels, restraunt & shops). Oil & gas crews & miners aren't helping these local towns like Moab or Monticello nearly as much. Add in guide services, gear & clothing manufacturers & outdoor publications, then we see much more overall employment than the fossil fuel industry.

The fossil fuel industry is funding the campaigns of many politicians. For the few oligarchs like the Koch Brothers & Rex Tillerson (our new Secretary of State & former ExxonMobil CEO) oil & gas development is extremely profitable. The money generated from fossil fuels benefits the 1% much more than the 99%.

We are no longer in an oil boom, so this rabbid desire to develop signifigantly more of this resource is based on pure speculation & the desire to maintain the status quo, rather than move aggressively toward a green economy & renewable energy.