Loxie
Well-known member
- Messages
- 10,936
- Reaction score
- 1,575
The reel issue with Australian Merino wool production is mulesing.
Patagonia (the company) supports anti's!
- Thread starter westie4566
- Start date
- Status
salarchaser
Well-known member
Hmm, just googled. Not good.
I can see the problem with that.
I'll stick to the rubber bands.
Yes I know, thats not what they were doing, ****ing disgusting. . .
salarchaser
Well-known member
Yep, gathered that now.
johnwest
Active member
And what about the RSPB culling deer on their land and NATURESCOT (new name for Scot Natural Heritage quango) moving the doe season forward to September.
Safranfoer
Well-known member
- Messages
- 9,494
- Reaction score
- 2,952
Love them or loathe them, they are super-transparent. On sourcing their wool and mulesing:
www.patagoniaworks.com
PETA's Wool Video — Patagonia Works
PETA has shown us video footage from within the Ovis XXI farm network that supplies merino wool for Patagonia’s baselayers and insulation. You can watch it here . It is as disturbing as anything PETA puts out. Four minutes long, the video contains graphic footage depicting inhumane treatment of lam
www.patagoniaworks.com
Neil W
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,303
- Reaction score
- 774
I think we should be careful on threads like this. Generally my view is that Patagonia as a company try hard to do good and have really pushed other out door companies to use recycled and ethically produced materials and have supported many good environmental causes.
maybe they shouldn’t be supporting this group. I don’t pretend to know enough about it to jump up and down and say there stuff is all over priced rubbish and I will never use it again. If an official body contacts Patagonia on this issue and points out why their support is maybe misguided then maybe they will listen and change.
I will continue to use some of their products which are excellent and produced with an ethos that I support. They are also a positive force in trying to stop fish farming and should be supported for this in my view.
maybe they shouldn’t be supporting this group. I don’t pretend to know enough about it to jump up and down and say there stuff is all over priced rubbish and I will never use it again. If an official body contacts Patagonia on this issue and points out why their support is maybe misguided then maybe they will listen and change.
I will continue to use some of their products which are excellent and produced with an ethos that I support. They are also a positive force in trying to stop fish farming and should be supported for this in my view.
Troosers Too
Member
Patagonia is a company with a strong ethos, I agree. They make some good, if expensive,products. Not for nothing were they called Patagucci in Chamonix for many years. Through skiing, climbing & now fishing, I've used their probucts for more years than I can remember, however they currently sponsor a group of aggressive anti-field sports activists. It could be that they have been persuaded that this group are something other than they are, I don't know, but until that sponsorship ends I cannot and will not purchase another piece of their gear.
I can find no way of making a protest to Patagonia on their website so perhaps threads like this, where people show their anger, is exactly what is needed. They will see it, make no mistake.
Fishing - particularly salmon fishing where we are targetting a vulnerable species - will be on the radar of groups like this and sooner or later ghillies and rods will start to be intimidated and followed.
Neil W
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,303
- Reaction score
- 774
Fair enough and I don’t disagree with anything you say.
whoever represents those being wronged by this group need to present good evidence to Patagonia on this issue. If I knew more about it I may also consider e.mailing them directly as there is a contact facility on their website. If there is official representation and people with knowledge contact through the website I am sure they will take notice. How they react to this representation is how I will personally judge them and decide if I will carry on buying their products.
I agree with you that they may notice this thread as they will have people who trawl social media. If that’s true then
PATGONIA Please take a look at this group you are supporting and listen to any evidence you receive of practices which go against your own ethos
Loxie
Well-known member
- Messages
- 10,936
- Reaction score
- 1,575
Good point. I have sent communication on the issue to interested parties and I hope they will open a dialogue with the company.
Safranfoer
Well-known member
- Messages
- 9,494
- Reaction score
- 2,952
It certainly looks like they listen when they’ve got something wrong.
Safranfoer
Well-known member
- Messages
- 9,494
- Reaction score
- 2,952
The Fitz Rot t-shirts are very very nice.
lefthandup
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,699
- Reaction score
- 1,952
£40 for a t-shirt....are you f*****g mad...
I find Patagonia a better fit than Simms, both Orvis and Simms are huge for their relative size.
I have two SST jackets and a River Salt jacket no leaks what so ever, one of the SST’s I bought in 1997 so not bad performance from a 23 year old jacket
Cyclops
Sang-Froid
- Messages
- 927
- Reaction score
- 1,234
Sales for this Aberdonian£40 for a t-shirt....are you f*****g mad...
Neil W
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,303
- Reaction score
- 774
Yep I always buy Patagonia and Simms stuff in sales. Always a bargain to be foundSales for this Aberdonian
lefthandup
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,699
- Reaction score
- 1,952
No-one will see it under your kappa hoodie mate...Sales for this Aberdonian
Cyclops
Sang-Froid
- Messages
- 927
- Reaction score
- 1,234
GWCT submit all of their research through the peer review process. They are entirely independent, and a charity that must remain so to fulfill the Charity Commission obligations. More to the point, Wild Justice didn’t even critique their evidence in a recent judicial review. GWCT are the world leaders in biodiversity and ecosystem research of upland habitats.
For all of those who question whether MM are involved in illegal activity:
- Throughout their facebook and twitter you can see calls for people to go shoot ‘stabbing’, with names and addresses and dates of shoots publicised.
- They show an image of Luke Steele, convicted criminal and animal rights extremist, founder of ‘Ban Bloodsports on Yorkshire Moors’, leading an ‘education party’ looking at a legal snare on some moorland.
- They illegally post images of gamekeepers and encourage harassment of them.
- They illegally promote trespass.
As others have pointed out, they are overtly also for a ban on driven grouse shooting.
The benefits of driven grouse shooting, both social, environmental and economic, are widely publicised in a raft of peer reviewed science: both desk top reviews of previous literature and original research. The GWCT is a repository of some of this, as well as carrying out its own peer reviewed research. Some has also just been published regarded heather/muir burn by the University of Northampton too. Googling this can find it, but you might have to wade through some Avery/Packham-esque generalisations before you get to the actual science. Claims that burning increases water run-off and dries out carbon sequestering sphagnum moss are extraordinary - the science says it does exactly the opposite!
- Throughout their facebook and twitter you can see calls for people to go shoot ‘stabbing’, with names and addresses and dates of shoots publicised.
- They show an image of Luke Steele, convicted criminal and animal rights extremist, founder of ‘Ban Bloodsports on Yorkshire Moors’, leading an ‘education party’ looking at a legal snare on some moorland.
- They illegally post images of gamekeepers and encourage harassment of them.
- They illegally promote trespass.
As others have pointed out, they are overtly also for a ban on driven grouse shooting.
The benefits of driven grouse shooting, both social, environmental and economic, are widely publicised in a raft of peer reviewed science: both desk top reviews of previous literature and original research. The GWCT is a repository of some of this, as well as carrying out its own peer reviewed research. Some has also just been published regarded heather/muir burn by the University of Northampton too. Googling this can find it, but you might have to wade through some Avery/Packham-esque generalisations before you get to the actual science. Claims that burning increases water run-off and dries out carbon sequestering sphagnum moss are extraordinary - the science says it does exactly the opposite!
- Status