Letter from REI blog

[El Jason]

http://blog.rei.com/news/100-ceos-unite-for-public-lands/?cm_mmc=sm_fb-_-blog-_-public_land_stance

Good to see the outdoor industry wade into this fight. Read through the list at the end and you can see if your favorite gear companies support your public lands.

 

[bowhuntmontana]

I like seeing this a lot!

 

[Oneye]

Kudos to them for doing it.

 

[Southern Elk]

I'm glad they are finally stepping up. I wish they would have done so sooner.

 

[Elkmagnet]

It's about time I hope this gets some publicity.
More troubling than anything is the companies I don't see on the list.

 

[fowladdict]

The one comment on the link unfortunately shows just how far apart some of us are in our beliefs and understandings of OUR public lands. I hope one of you guys that have better writings skills than I will share your thoughts so this isn't the only comment that those that may be on the fence are reading.

Thanks for sharing this JLS.

 

[James Riley]

The one comment on the link unfortunately shows just how far apart some of us are in our beliefs and understandings of OUR public lands. I hope one of you guys that have better writings skills than I will share your thoughts so this isn't the only comment that those that may be on the fence are reading.

Thanks for sharing this JLS.

I'm not seeing it. Please share. Could be because I'm using my phone.

 

[airlocksniffer]

I'm not seeing it. Please share. Could be because I'm using my phone.

Here is the comment James:

This would be an impressive list if it contained companies that didn't directly benefit from "public" lands. Public means no true ownership which means poor stewardship. No one washes a rental car as the old saying goes and the government has been a terrible steward of public lands. Private is better, so while the desire to preserve our outdoor spaces I share with you, the method I do not, and I always make sure my congressmen knows that.

 

[Southern Elk]

I'm surprised there's only one comment. I wonder if that means the blog doesn't get very many views? A few of us need to go on there and set the record straight.

 

[El Jason]

I'm surprised there's only one comment. I wonder if that means the blog doesn't get very many views? A few of us need to go on there and set the record straight.

There are a ton of comments on it on Facebook.

As usual, there are always the pocket Constitutionalist folks that claim the federal government can't own land.

 

[James Riley]

Here is the comment James:

Thanks, airlocksniffer.

I guess my response would be this:

1. It is an impressive list *even if* it contains only companies that directly benefit from "public" lands.
2. Public does *not* mean no true ownership. It just means you have to *share* ownership; a concept foreign to some, I know, but true nonetheless.
3. Public ownership does *not* mean poor stewardship. A failure to share means poor stewardship, ala the Tragedy of the Commons. And, a *failure to fund* stewardship mean poor stewardship.
4. No one washes a rental car because *they don't own it*, and they paid to *borrow* it. Public land is *owned* by all and they pay to own it.
5. The government has been a wonderful steward of public lands. Compare the West with the East. Hell, go back East and compare Arlington National Cemetery with the nearest strip mall.
6. Private is only better for the *private* owner, like the 1%. Private is worse for the public.
7. If you share the desire to preserve our outdoor spaces then you should take an inventory of the outdoor spaces worth preserving, see who owns them, and adjust your fire. You will find the public owns the vast, overwhelming majority of the remaining places worth preserving. That's not to say no private land is worth preserving; just that it is not available to the public and it could be made worthless at the whim of the owner. Indeed, if it is worth preserving, the best method would be for the public to buy it. America's greatest captains of industry knew this. Duh.

I could do better but I'd have to put more thought in to it.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Thanks, airlocksniffer.

I guess my response would be this:

1. It is an impressive list *even if* it contains only companies that directly benefit from "public" lands.
2. Public does *not* mean no true ownership. It just means you have to *share* ownership; a concept foreign to some, I know, but true nonetheless.
3. Public ownership does *not* mean poor stewardship. A failure to share means poor stewardship, ala the Tragedy of the Commons. And, a *failure to fund* stewardship mean poor stewardship.
4. No one washes a rental car because *they don't own it*, and they paid to *borrow* it. Public land is *owned* by all and they pay to own it.
5. The government has been a wonderful steward of public lands. Compare the West with the East. Hell, go back East and compare Arlington National Cemetery with the nearest strip mall.
6. Private is only better for the *private* owner, like the 1%. Private is worse for the public.
7. If you share the desire to preserve our outdoor spaces then you should take an inventory of the outdoor spaces worth preserving, see who owns them, and adjust your fire. You will find the public owns the vast, overwhelming majority of the remaining places worth preserving. That's not to say no private land is worth preserving; just that it is not available to the public and it could be made worthless at the whim of the owner. Indeed, if it is worth preserving, the best method would be for the public to buy it. America's greatest captains of industry knew this. Duh.

I could do better but I'd have to put more thought in to it.

What is the purpose of all the asterisks in that rambling?

Do they *add* some sort of reference to another area of your post?

 

[Southern Elk]

There are a ton of comments on it on Facebook.

As usual, there are always the pocket Constitutionalist folks that claim the federal government can't own land.

Thanks. I just looked on their FB page and you are correct. There seems to be a lot of mindless sheep buying into that Bundy 10th amendment crap.

 

[James Riley]

What is the purpose of all the asterisks in that rambling?

Do they *add* some sort of reference to another area of your post?

They are used in lieu of bold or italics to emphasize points.

What is the purpose of your stalking me? Are you queer for my gear?

 

[fowladdict]

....

 

[HSi-ESi]

It's nice to see them fighting - or at least starting to fight. Maybe now we can get a gear tax along the lines of Pittman-Robertson? I'll gladly pay that tax on top of their gear.

 

[fowladdict]

They are used in lieu of bold or italics to emphasize points.

What is the purpose of your stocking me? Are you queer for my gear?

LOL...you must be to Jose what Topgun is to Buzz.

BTW, *stalking...not stocking.

 

[James Riley]

LOL...you must be to Jose what Topgun is to Buzz.

BTW, *stalking...not stocking.

Must be. He blathers all over HT, unmolested, but calls me out on the most innocuous shit. Maybe he wants to be the only libtard on the site so he has to show his insubordination to his superiors. LOL!

Thanks for the typo catch. I'll go correct that.

 

[7mm08mo]

Some of my favorite companies on there, and my favorite shoe company is on there which I'm proud of, brooks running. I am kinda surprised I didn't know how they stood.

 

[Tkaldahl2000]

I am disappointed that I don't see Cabelas or Scheels on the list.