In Leaving Utah, Outdoor Retailer Puts Utah’s Conservation Discussion At Risk
After a flurry of activity and high-stakes meetings, the Outdoor Retailer show announced on February 16 that it was walking out on its 20-year marriage with Utah. This surprisingly abrupt move was spurred by the recent political events that prompted some of the outdoor industry’s leading voices to call on Outdoor Retailer to leave the state. This call to arms sent a strong and, it turns out, painful message to Utah politicians, and also provided an outlet for industry leaders and activists to vent their understandable frustration. But just as spouses come to regret statements yelled in the heat of the moment, this too leaves all parties empty with short-term gratification at the expense of long-term progress.
I was raised in Utah, started my career in Utah politics, and still spend several days a week at the SLC Experticity offices. I maintain a connection to the state by leading marketing for a Utah-based company, and — most importantly — fly fishing as often as possible, exclusively on Utah public lands. Now that I no longer live in the state, I see more clearly why external voices are so passionate about Utah’s public lands management. These experiences give me a unique perspective, and a strong grasp of the issues and concerns on the numerous sides of the Utah public lands debate.
After watching this debate unfold and come to a less-than-ideal conclusion, I can’t help but think Outdoor Retailer’s decision to leave in response to local politics feels a lot like the Cuban embargo. It won’t work. Although the initial purpose for embargo was to stimulate action, it resulted in stagnation. It was ineffective because it froze dialogue.
OR pulling out of Utah freezes necessary dialogue. It will be counterproductive to the environmental, conservation, and public access policies key to preserving the remarkable landmarks that grace Utah’s unique landscape.
Before analyzing the fallout of this decision, however, it’s important to examine the contributing factors. Whether you agree with them or not, it helps to understand a couple of things about the unique circumstances of Utah’s political situation. First, Utah has one of the most lopsided political dynamics in the United States. Rather than simply red and blue, the legislature and governor’s office are dominated by shades of red. Second, the federal government owns roughly 65% of Utah’s land, more than any other state except Nevada. For some perspective, consider that Utah has more national parks than any other state excepting California and Alaska, both of which are massive compared to Utah’s moderate size.
The combined effect of these two factors means that many of the environmental decisions and declarations that Utah’s political leaders make are motivated less by the environment itself and more by the “don’t tread on me” mentality that has always played a foundational role in the states’ rights ideology of the GOP.
Politics aside, the narrative that Utah’s politicians don’t care for their land is patently false. I’ve worked with them. They fish. They hunt. They hike. They camp. Many Utah politicians have a deep love and reverence for their backyard. It’s easy to peg them as pro-energy, and therefore anti-conservation, but those who understand their position know that most Utah leaders believe energy and conservation can, and should, cohabitate. In a state that is rich with both natural resources and natural beauty, the cohabitation discussion is critical.
While the latest resolution regarding Bears Ears Monument could rightly be seen as just the latest installment in an endless series of conservative posturing against liberal activists, it’s important not to lose sight of what’s at stake here: the very treasures that dot one of the most unique landscapes on planet earth.
We now face an unfortunate reality. Outdoor Retailer is leaving, robbing local political discourse of an essential voice in the environmental debate. And now Utah’s political zeitgeist could shift dangerously away from conservation. This isn’t because Utahns don’t love nature, but because of the visceral response conservatives have to federal mandates, which bristle against the very core of their political ethos.
In taking their money and voices elsewhere, environmental activists who find themselves out of the mainstream of Utah politics are burning a crucial bridge that connects out-of-state environmental stakeholders, the federal government, and the politicians in whose state these treasures happen to reside.
Much has been said about the dangerous effects of internet echo chambers, where social network users engage only with those who share their own particular point-of-view. Outdoor Retailer leaving Utah would be a retreat into a geographic echo chamber to parallel the one that exists all-too-often online. While this echo chamber provides a momentary respite from the frustrations of Utah’s contentious environmental dialogue, it’s entirely unlikely to result in any positive effect on Utah’s environmental policies.
A move to any other state shifts the epicenter of the outdoor industry’s dialogue to what must realistically be seen as a lesser battlefield. It’s true that other states are likely to provide a friendlier political climate than Utah, but those states simply do not have the magnitude nor diversity of the natural wonders to offer. While nature abounds the American West, the red rock wonders that lie at the core of Bears Ears, Grand Staircase, and many other points of political debate are unique to Utah.
These unique natural treasures carry a value so great to humanity that their stewardship ought to transcend both politics and geographic boundaries. If that value is to endure, then these treasures must remain at the very heart of the political debate in Utah. The only way to ensure that happens is for environmental voices to stay, not leave. As a native child of Utah, I will hold out hope for emotions to subside, and for Outdoor Retailer and Utah to make it work.
