It's no secret that U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop dislikes The Antiquities Act and was thrilled to see President Trump move to dismantle the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments in Utah. So it shouldn't be a great surprise that the House Natural Resources Committee that he chairs has publicly attacked Patagonia, which opposes the president's move.
Last week Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke branded the outdoor wear company as a "liar" for running ads saying President Trump stole land from the American people by issuing a proclamation that cut 2 million acres, combined, from the two monuments. And on Friday the Natural Resources Committee used its Twitter feed to claim that "Patagonia is Lying To You."
"A corporate giant hijacking our public lands debate to sell more products to wealthy elitist urban dwellers from New York to San Francisco," the tweet added.
Perhaps this shouldn't be surprising in the brash, pushback, smack down political world the Trump administration has ushered in, but the tweet has raised more than a few eyebrows.
"When a federal government official publicly calls you a liar on an official social media account, without any due process whatsoever, the first thing you should do is call a lawyer. The second thing you should do is find out the name of the official who posted this tweet," wrote Walter Shaub, who formerly directed the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, in a tweet of his own.
"I don’t know if there’s any legal recourse, but I hope Patagonia has a law firm research the issue," he added. "The federal govt officially and publicly calling a company a liar for political reasons is a bizarre and dangerous departure from civic norms. It’s also decidedly anti-free market."
The matter raises the question about whether it's appropriate for a federal government entity to publicly attack a company. What will be interesting to see is whether it boosts sales for Patagonia, as President Trump's criticism of Nordstrom earlier this year did for that company.
Story Categories:
A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
- Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
- Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
- Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
- North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
- Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
- Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
- Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.
INN Member
The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.
Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.
Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.
You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.
Comments
Perhaps the President should have a lawyer look into Patagonia for calling him a theif.
thats a non starter. First Amendment protects speech.
I only wish that Patagonia was a publicly traded corporation so I could've bought stock on my Ameritrade account yesterday.
First it seems like you're disputing that the original land grab was NOT for financial gain by claiming they needed a lawyer after this tweet...
"A corporate giant hijacking our public lands debate to sell more products to wealthy elitist urban dwellers from New York to San Francisco," the tweet added.
Finish by reading the LAST PART of THIS statement then ask youselves how returning the land to the state is "anti-free market" if it wasn't grabbed to do EXACTLY WHAT THE FIRST STATEMENT SAID !!
"I don’t know if there’s any legal recourse, but I hope Patagonia has a law firm research the issue," he added. "The federal govt officially and publicly calling a company a liar for political reasons is a bizarre and dangerous departure from civic norms. It’s also decidedly anti-free market."
Some times it's tough to sort through the B.S., but in this instance, NOT SO MUCH...
The FEDS (mostly the BLM) has been stealing land from the people for DECADES. It's about time we had a president that saw the theft for what it is!
So...stealing federal land for Canadian mining interest fits within your imaginary but oh-so-typical San Juna County B.S. narrative how?
Your short term memory forgot the Feds stealing land for Chinease Solar farm that a Democratic Senators son was a lawyer for...
How many times do we have to go through this and explain ??? The land was not "returned to the state" by the administration. First of all, it remains federal land, under the jurisdiction of the BLM and Forest Service. Secondly, and more importantly, it was NEVER state land to begin with, so not only can it not be returned, it could not have been stolen, either.
The land in these monuments was federal before the monuments were designated. No private property or state lands were incorporated into the monuments.
In contrast to the 13 Original States, independent before they formed the United States, the lands in the West were FEDERAL before Utah and the other states even became states. Native Americans lived there first, obviously, but it was also bought from France, conquered and bought from Mexico through the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, treaty with Great Britain, and bought from Russia.
The Constitution gave Congress the right to make any and all laws and regulations regarding the territory of the United States. When many of the Western states were created, the states themselves did not want to be responsible for all the territory within their borders. They disclaimed any future right to the lands. That's actually in Utah's constitution. At the time of statehood, these were lands the state thought weren't productive, and it didn't want to be saddled with the cost of managing them. Even now, Utah wouldn't have the budget to manage them properly and would have to sell them off to private interests. Then the public would be certainly locked out.
It helps to know a little history before commenting.
The drumpf plot sickens: http://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2017/12/11/by-renaming-new-utah-m...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/uranium-firm-urge...
Aren't those conservative individuals the ones saying "corporations are peope"? Of course, consistency has never been an issue for them.
I remember back around 1966 hearing Representative Sam Steiger (R-Arizona) accuse David R. Brower of being in it for the money. That's when Dave was leading the campaign against two dams that would have been built in the Grand Canyon. It was a novel accusation at the time. Except for Steiger, even the lawmakers who proposed the dams (Rep. Morris Udall leading) respected conservationists' role and recognized our right to present our views and our analysis of the issue.
Did I miss the for sale sign or did Trump give this land away? No, it’s still government land so Zinke is correct in labeling Patagonia a liar. As far as being “bizarre and dangerous” I think that is true of Patagonia and all the other businesses that see fit to involve themselves in politics and risk alienating a good portion of their customers.
Wild, I'm guessing the Devil's Advocate pitch would go something like this: If you owned 1.9 million acres, and someone took roughly 1 million acres away, said you still owned it, but that they were going to use it for cattle grazing or hunting or mining, and that you had to keep off that mining development for 40 years while it was strip mined and roads and railroad lines were cut into it, and then the company failed horribly to restore the land afterwards because of the arid, friable landscape, would you say your land was stolen?
I think the legal battle when this reaches court will be very interesting to watch.
Kurt, in your example it comes a bit closer depending on exactly what was done. Hunting? No, I wouldn't call that stolen in the least. In fact I would call it being given back as the administration has (even though I am not a hunter myself). "IF" it were to be set aside for mining and the public no longer had access then yes, I would grant you it was being stolen but I have not seen any such proposal (yet). Should that happen I would hope a deal would be struck in the best interests of the taxpayers but lets hope it doesn't come to that.
i bought gift cards to Patagonia the day their statement came out. It might not be much, but I felt good.
I'm no urbanite, and I buy patagonia products because of their environmental stances and because they are quality. Anyone who can rile up Zinke will get my business even more. He is a piece of garbage. GOOO Patagucci!
Section 2 of the Utah State Constitution forever gives up any claim to all lands that had not been patented by any citizens of Utah at the time of statehood. Similar language is found in constitutions of all the other western states as well.
In addition, one of the bogus claims made by Zinke and drumpf and the Utah GOP is that declaration of Bears Ears and Grand Staircase made these lands inaccessible to the public. Totally false.
Lee, could you show us where Zinke and Trump claimed the lands would be inaccessible?
Trump quote regarding Bears Ears: "...public lands will once again be for public use." Most people would interpret that to mean that these lands have been inaccessbile to the public.
It had been pleasantly quiet in here for a few days.
From Deseret News: Said Trump: "Public lands will once again be for public use."
From the White House transcript of trump's remarks in SLC: We've seen many rural families stopped from enjoying their outdoor activities. And the fact they've done it all their lives made no difference to the bureaucrats in Washington.
And: With the action I’m taking today, we will not only give back your voice over the use of this land, we will also restore your access and your enjoyment. Public lands will once again be for public use
trump, quoted in Wall Street Journal: These places should never have been locked up . . . locking out people who would enjoy their use
Rob Bishop, speaking to radio host Doug Wright: Obama literally locked Utahns -- and others who might enjoy use of these lands -- locked them out of these special places
In an email to constituents from Senator Mike Lee: Thanks to this administration, Utahns will no longer be locked out of their public lands
Secretary Zinke sure had a lot of gall calling out Patagonia as a "Liar". The Bears Ears National Monument designation did nothing to impede public access to these areas, nor did reducing the National Monument by 90% increase public access. Mineral extraction is restricted, but the President was specifically referring to families enjoying their outdoor activies. They were not "Locked out" by the National Monument designation. Family outdoor activities can, however, be adversely affected by mining, which may now occur in the areas which the Administration wants to strip of its protection. BTW: I am neither "Wealthy" nor an "Elitist urban dweller", but I purchase Patagonia products and appreciate their stand. Please, Mr. Zinke, don't ""Unite" us any more.
The rhetoric here is as old as the hills. Western resource interests have always claimed that the public is being "locked out" of their lands. Don't blame Messrs Zinke and Trump for taking a page out of history and using the rhetoric that always works.
Rather, blame environmentalists for forgetting their roots, now to equate climate change with the Devil Incarnate and forget the public lands themselves. Does any young person in the environmental movement know how to argue for parks and wilderness? Like, you know, ahhh, I don't see very many. I mean, it's awesome, dude, if you believe in wilderness, but I believe in climate change far more.
I know; it's a generalization again, but our young people have become miserable speakers. The history they know is itself a guilt trip. Starting at the University of Wisconsin 20 years ago, wilderness was criticized for being the "wrong nature." Now that criticism has circled the country. True wilderness never existed in the first place. A "stolen" nature--and stolen from the Indians--it has no right to exist.
Contast that with how wilderness was taught 50 years ago and you get the picture about what is missing today. Young people are in no position to defend what they don't understand. Fifty years ago, every campus in the country would have been in an uproar. Dam Grand Canyon, Mr. President and Mr. Secretary? Are you nuts?
Today, young people are taught that the public lands are an imperfect institution, at best. We can cover the public lands with wind turbines knowing our conscience is clean.
President Trump is smart; Secretary Zinke is smart. You may not like it, but there it is. They read the history; they know the history. They know what will work "out West." Just say that the public is being "locked out." And then, when your son or daughter attends the modern university, count on them to fill in the rest.
What? Where was hunting disallowed? Hunting is allowed in national monuments under BLM and Forest Service management. There are a lot of things that are allowed to continue, and that includes existing grazing and mining permits. However, they're certainly not giving it back for hunters since they was never stopped. And if new mining/grazing claims are allowed then that affects the ability to hunt.
"What? Where was hunting disallowed? Hunting is allowed in national monuments under BLM and Forest Service management. There are a lot of things that are allowed to continue, and that includes existing grazing and mining permits. However, they're certainly not giving it back for hunters since they was never stopped. And if new mining/grazing claims are allowed then that affects the ability to hunt."
y_p_w - I think you may have misunderstood my comment. I was responding to Kurt's reply (I should have copied hos response). If I understood his and your response correctly, Kurt was implying that opening the land to hunters could be interpreted as stealing the land. I don't see opening land to hunters as stealing land by any stretch of the imagination.
I was discussing the reality on the ground as it exists. When Bears Ears was established as a national monument, it was clear that hunting would be allowed to continue under existing BLM policy for national monuments under their control. It was allowed before the designation, so it wouldn't be "stealing" under any stretch to allow hunting. If anything, the national monument status of the land would protect the ability to hunt by keeping out mining claims that would effectively privatize the mined areas as well as affect wildlife patterns.
A coyote is wily; a tiger is cunning, but neither are "smart."
http://www.hcn.org/articles/tribal-affairs-trumps-message-for-tribes-let...
Here's a report from the Salt Lake Tribune this morning telling of lobbying by Energy Fuels -- a uranium mining company -- to reduce the size of Bears Ears:
http://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/12/13/uranium-mill-pressed-trump-officia...
"A coyote is wily; a tiger is cunning, but neither are [sic] "smart."
Anonymous, I can't possibly hurt your feelings, because you are "anonymous," but do you ever use a dictionary--let alone a thesaurus? I meant smart in the sense of being clever, and yes, politicians are very "smart." Trump didn't get elected president by being "brilliant." He rather got elected by being "smart," from my thesuarus, "clever, ingenious, resourceful." He knew what would work and put it to work. That's not being cunning; that's being smart.
What so many of his critics fail to understand is how that applies to their criticism. He doesn't care what his critics think. He merely cares how the system operates, and the American people--if not "our" kind of people--are sick and tired of being marginalized. The best writer on the subject last year was Peggy Noonan. It's not being "smart" to tell the American people they are dumb and you are smart.
Now we're paying the price of President Trump appealing to his base. Did anyone think he wouldn't? Is anyone surprised that he has? Was I surprised when Ken Salazar, as Interior Secretary under President Obama, awarded millions of acres of our public lands to renewable energy? No. Nor was I surprised when Mr. Obama established new national monuments as a smokescreen, and so "appeared" to be a preservationist. That's how politicians work to undermine their critics. Don't look behind the curtain; look over here.
They're smart and we're naive. As for brillance, no one would disagree that few such politicians have ever existed.
Al - congratulations on keeping it to five paragraphs. I am curious, though. Where did President Obama state that he was establishing monuments as a smokescreen, or was that merely an accusation by his opponents that you happen to agree with?
A fair question, Rick, but the accusation, as you call it, is mine. Better said, it's an observation based on the historical truth of national monuments. In 1933, Horace Albright successfully had them transferred to the National Park Service, only to start "losing" them again in the 1970s to the land management agencies claiming "original" ownership.
In my book, a monument is NOT a monument unless managed by the National Park Service. THAT speaks to preservation; everything else speaks to expedience.
Since you don't like it when I ramble on, why don't you look up Mr. Obama's monuments. As for his gifts to Google, General Electric, and others, they, too, are a matter of public record. As for his attempts to weaken the Endangered Species Act, allowing wind farms a greater "legal take" of Bald and Golden Eagles, that, too, is a matter of public record, in fact, going back to 2009. See, for example, http://www.basinandrangewatch.org/Palen.html
It's all in the record for those who care about parks and wilderness instead of the political party they happen to "like." Conservation, if properly followed, is always an equal opportunity offender. Screw with my land, Mr. President, and you will hear from me. There, Mr. Trump is hardly being "smart" himself. He could have stonewalled Utah and moved on.
Whoops! Five paragraphs again, I see. It's the historian in me, and I apologize. But if you want good government, that means taking the time to do your research. In this case, we are well past the time when the national monuments really meant something. Just changing the name doesn't change a thing.
As I figured, what you stated as a fiat fact was your conjecture and accusation, and not identified as such until called on it.
I've never been paid by the word myself, but I do remember what happens when you tell a college student that their paper must have X number of words.
What paper, Rick? You mean the one students buy off the Internet? Like, you know, I mean, how do students, now spending nine hours a day on their "devices," have any sense of good writing at all? You would have been so lucky to have me assigning your papers, because yes, I expected my students to read, write, and speak at the college level. Forgive me for having a standard that meant something. Certainly you are not alone.
As for Mr. Obama, I have not "accused" him of anything. He played the politics and he won. Just don't put him on the level of a Theodore Roosevelt. Our public lands are the poorer for Mr. Obama's presidency, unless of course you believe that the desert is just a wasteland. Anyone who can "save" Bears Ears should have understood the hypocrisy of putting one landscape above another. Or is that too many words for you again?
To be fair, Alfred, Obama created or expanded 34 national monuments, protecting an additional 550 million acres. He's certainly no TR--or FDR--and he seems to have prioritized "green energy" over wilderness, but I'm not sure by what metric we can say our public lands "are the poorer" for his presidency. At worst, I'd say it's a mixed bag, but one that looks pretty good given what we're currently seeing from the Executive branch.
Certainly, the current Executive branch is another mess. But why does that suddenly apply universally? Could it be, as Daniel Henninger writes in THE WALL STREET JOURNAL this morning, because "American politics is dividing now into a series of concentric circles, not unlike Dante's circles of Hell."
"Forget your political biases," he continues, "which impair comprehension in direct proportion to their intensity. Clarity comes only to those willing to see all this for what it is: a crude death struggle for power. . . He won, we lost. Now we have to win. How we do that is irrelevant." The shoe could just as easily be on the other foot. She won, we lost. How we win back our power is irrelevant.
As advocates for our public lands, we find ourselves caught in the middle. Actually, George W. Bush started the phenomenon of racking up "points" by setting aside millions of acres of ocean as national monuments.
My point is: We can't get comfortable cheering for "our" side when both sides are so sick. Had she won and he lost, we would still be facing down Dante's Inferno, but who reads THAT these days?
Agreed.
Hesitate to comment here, but, Alfred, I agree to the extent that the politics does become a struggle for power (money). My less than expert knowledge of history tells me politics is tumultuous, has been for most of our history. However there are major differences in the current party positions on many issues. The recent election in Alabama just one example. As advocates for our environment and public lands, I do not think we are caught in the middle.
Ron, the election results in Alabama had nothing to do with politics.
Ron, the election results in Alabama had nothing to do with politics.
Okay. What was it, then? Drumpf sure sounded like it was when he said, "We NEED you to vote for Moore, because if you don't, our agenda will collapse." I'm interested in hearing your interpretation, ec.
Val Bagley, cartoonist at Salt Lake Tribune just came up with another gem:
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/bagley/2017/12/15/bagley-cartoon-bargain-b...
This one really captures the Utah legislature's public lands ethic.
You really can't be that oblivious, Lee, can you?
It is that OBVIOUS, isn't it Lee? Unfortunately accurate cartoon.
Oh, so the accusation of sexual misconduct with a minor had nothing to do with it? Politics is why many Republican Congressmen and Senators campaigned against him? Politics is why the Senate campaign committe didn't back him and why the RNC stayed away so long? I tell you Lee, I can only hope you are being intentionally disingenious. The alternative would be embarassing for you.
Okay, if you say so. But how do you explain drumpf's support?
Meanwhile, I just made my first purchase from Patagonia.
Explain Trumps support? Do you believe Moore lost because of Trumps support?
Yes, Trump's support was political, as well of respectful of the principle of innocent until proven guilty. But the election results had nothing to do with Trumps support. Had there been no misconduct allegations, Moore would have won by a landslide with or without Trump support.
Thank you. But are you sure you're not a politician in disguise? That kind of dodging, twisting, turning and avoiding the question sounds just like what we here in Utah expect from our good friends Hatch, Lee, Bishop, Stewart, Love et al.
As wth just about everything else that goes on the U.S. capitol these days, the debacle in Alabama was a slimy mix of morality, immorality, honesty, party loyalty, dishonesty, values vs no values, and an incredible clash of ideologies mixed with stupidity and greed and just about every other corruption one can imagine. It was, in a nutshell, an unfortunate display of what this nation has sunk to as our politicians have placed party agendas ahead of what's really important.
Conservative columnist George F. Will did an excellent job of examining the politics and morality of this mess: https://www.arcamax.com/politics/fromtheright/georgewill/s-2028190?fs
Happy Hannukah, friend.
Agree Lee.
And, Lee, the group who more than any other made the day in Alabama was black women. The one demographic that befuddles Repuclicans in general and Trump in particular. He simply canniot relate to them. Personally, one on one, in groups - he has no frame of reference.
What "dodging, twisting and turning" did I do? The issue being addressed was whether the outcome of the election was based on politics. It wasn't. It was based on questionable allegations from 40 years ago. Politics, Trump, greed, party loyalty had nothing to do with it. If there had been the latter the election would have gone the other way.
Pages