Conspiracy Theory

[noharleyyet]

Dammit Nemont, this is serious bidness.

...carry on gnashers and renders.

 

[Nemont]

The mistake so often made in the U.S. is assuming that if individuals really have the heart and really value something, they will get the money to buy it. The mistake so often made in the U.S. is forgetting that the collective had the heart and really valued something, so they refused to sell and kept it for themselves. The capitalist want it. If they can't buy it outright, they will try to buy the legislature and get it that way.

That is an inaccurate view of how the collective came to hold the public lands it currently does. There was value placed upon those lands for cattle grazing, timber harvest and mining. It has been in the fairly recent past that average Joe American has had the money, time and resources to utilize and recreate on public lands.

So to claim the collective had a pure motive and clear agenda not involving profit motives for keeping large holdings of land is to start with an complete fiction. The collective set aside Yellowstone which for the first half of it's existence was a playground for the rich and affluent who could afford a weeks/months long train trip into the Park.

Forest service lands were set aside for timber harvest for private companies to profit from. Many of the lands that the BLM has was not valued by people during the Homestead area and ended simply not being claimed.

So to pretend that the collective is somehow superior to the individual because of heart is utter bullshit.

Doesn't mean we should trade away public lands, sell them off or have states controlling them. It means the reasons you give for the lands being preserved in the first place wasn't because of the superior heart of the collective. In many cases it was a happy accident of those lands not having value when others were getting theirs or corporations who saw the value in harvesting the trees but not owning the land or settlers discovering it was impossible to make a go of it by trying to farm a desert.

Nemont

 

[James Riley]

That is an inaccurate view of how the collective came to hold the public lands it currently does. There was value placed upon those lands for cattle grazing, timber harvest and mining. It has been in the fairly recent past that average Joe American has had the money, time and resources to utilize and recreate on public lands.

So to claim the collective had a pure motive and clear agenda not involving profit motives for keep large holdings of land is to start with an complete fiction. The collective set aside Yellowstone for the first half of it's existence as a playground for the rich and affluent who could afford a weeks/monthslong train trip into the Park.

Forest service lands were set aside for timber harvest for private companies to profit from. Many of the lands that the BLM has was not valued by people during the Homestead area and ended simply not being claimed.

So to pretend that the collective is somehow superior to the individual because of heart is utter bullshit.

Doesn't mean we should trade away public lands, sell them off or have states controlling them. It means the reasons you give for the lands being preserved in the first place wasn't because of the superior heart of the collective. In many cases it was a happy accident of those lands not having value when others were getting theirs or corporations who saw the value in harvesting the trees but not owning the land or settlers discovering it was impossible to make a go of it by trying to farm a desert.

Nemont

That is revisionist history. In truth, the collective came to possess the land by occupation, disease, war and famine launched against a pre-existing collective that exercised a completely different valuation methodology; a methodology which retained a relatively free, abundant and available wildlife resource.

Contrary to what you state, the new average Joe didn't need money and had plenty of time to utilize the resource, and recreate on it. It was only when the resource was depleted under the new regime that the collective came in, in a retrograde action, to defend the remainder and, in some cases, restore it.

If you question the motives of men like T. Roosevelt, et al, and suggest they were profit driven and not pure, then I don't know what to tell you. Just revisit your American history. To the extent there is anything at all remaining is patently due to the collective expressing the heart of individuals who were NOT driven by the profit motive. Your assessment is, as you would say, total BS.

The failure in your reasoning is this: You assume that anything which is left is the result of happy accident, or was brought to us by money, or funnier still, by the voluntary restraint of those who had carte blanche to exploit it but for some reason did not (the kindness of their heart?). That is a slap in the face to all those who, acting by and through their government (collective) decided to pull back on the reins of the horse they rode into the west.

I might add that we had an 1872 Mining Act, a Taylor Grazing Act, Homestead Acts and other statutes that were designed to ensure collective management of the resource. If the sole goal had been, as you state "for private companies to profit from" then those Acts would have been unnecessary. The land would have been opened to anyone for anything at anytime, winner take all. Any restraint at all was the result of a collective thinking about something other than private profit.

 

[James Riley]

double tap

 

[Nemont]

That is revisionist history. In truth, the collective came to possess the land by occupation, disease, war and famine launched against a pre-existing collective that exercised a completely different valuation methodology; a methodology which retained a relatively free, abundant and available wildlife resource.

Contrary to what you state, the new average Joe didn't need money and had plenty of time to utilize the resource, and recreate on it. It was only when the resource was depleted under the new regime that the collective came in, in a retrograde action, to defend the remainder and, in some cases, restore it.

If you question the motives of men like T. Roosevelt, et al, and suggest they were profit driven and not pure, then I don't know what to tell you. Just revisit your American history. To the extent there is anything at all remaining is patently due to the collective expressing the heart of individuals who were NOT driven by the profit motive. Your assessment is, as you would say, total BS.

The failure in your reasoning is this: You assume that anything which is left is the result of happy accident, or was brought to us by money, or funnier still, by the voluntary restraint of those who had carte blanche to exploit it but for some reason did not (the kindness of their heart?). That is a slap in the face to all those who, acting by and through their government (collective) decided to pull back on the reins of the horse it rode into the west.

If anyone needs a slap in the face it would be you.

Nemont

 

[James Riley]

If anyone needs a slap in the face it would be you.
Nemont

Cognitive dissonance is interesting to see.

 

[SunRiverMan]

I have a contingency plan and a place to go. The only question would be would I want to live in a world like that. Peace!

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/vsc/images/image_mngr/300-399/img316.jpg

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/volcanoes/yellowstone/yellowstone_sub_page_91.html

 

[Eric Albus]

nemont....you are correct...that is utter BS.

james, like it or not, capitalism is the reason that we have wildlife.....not unbridled capitalism...which is what occurred during the market hunting days of old..... If wildlife held no monetary value, there would be little to no wildlife left.

If wildlife should have no value, why then does the state set different fines/valuation for poaching sheep(ovis Canadensis) vs. antelope(antelocapri americanus)? Why does this state have a "trophy" listing on deer/elk and adjust the fine according? Like it or not wildlife does have an intrinsic value, that is monetary....set by the state, due to the sporting public demanding higher fines levied for illegal takings of trophy animals.

 

[BuzzH]

Eric,

Pay attention, the State didn't set the poaching violations/fines...it was demanded by MT BHA and specifically one member. Sure, the legislature had to pass it, but they didn't do it because of the value the State (legislature) perceived a sheep or trophy classification of an elk/deer, it was done to discourage the illegal sale of poached wildlife.

I can assure you, the Legislature doesn't recognize the intrinsic value of wildlife...or the monetary value either in many cases.

If they did, they wouldn't have to be forced, via hunters and anglers, to raise/levy fines that weren't a ridiculous joke to begin with. They also wouldn't let numb-nuts like Brendan, Fielder, Barrett, etc. try to devalue wildlife via their constant attacks on public wildlife, public lands, and Montana Sportsmen.

Its intuitively obvious, even to the most casual observer, that many, in YOUR legislature, do not hold wildlife in high regard...or place much value on same.

The coffee is burnt...

 

[Eric Albus]

buzz...your view of the world is so jaundiced....Brenden places a great value on wildlife, I do not know Fielder or Barrett, but would like to think that they also place a great value on wildlife. Were it not for Brenden we would not have a pheasant season that runs through Dec....he did this so high school/college kids and have a hunt w/ family over Christmas break....does that sound like something an anti-sportsman/hunter would do?

The fines were increased to order to discourage poaching of wildlife, not the "illegal sale of poached wildlife". They were not just an effort by one BHA member. MOGA had a hand in it as well, as did landowners.

What your corner perceives as an attack on "access, wildlife, sportsmen, ect." the other side sees as a protection of private property rights in a lot of instances.

 

[Straight Arrow]

the other side sees as a protection of private property rights in a lot of instances.

If the other side is UPOM, in many instances those are property right which don't actually exist in code or constitution. In the case of Sen Brenden those protections are highly political and skewed logic with regard to paranoia about wildlife and sportsmen. Good on him if the pheasant season was to his credit, but that would certainly be an anomaly regarding his attitude about hunting issues ... however, Eric no offense, but often your info is not rock solid.

 

[James Riley]

nemont....you are correct...that is utter BS.

james, like it or not, capitalism is the reason that we have wildlife.....not unbridled capitalism...which is what occurred during the market hunting days of old.

Eric: Please don't say what I said is utter BS in one sentence, and then agree with what I said in the next sentence. Go back and study my posts and read about the horse. Then think about your use of the term "unbridled".

Then put that into the context of my statement about the classic American conflict and how that can be resolved. Hint: not with cognitive dissonance but, rather, with an understanding of certain facts about American History which don't fit the narrative of certain conservative interests: i.e. good things come from bridling those who think they are above being bridled.

I can go on about the wonderful things the collective has done for the private sector, like recognizing the corporation and granting shareholders protection from having to take personal responsibility for their own actions, from subsidies and welfare given to railroads and homesteaders and miners, and loggers and ranchers, a U.S. Army that dealt with their "Indian Problem" so they could pursue their personal goals without being killed, the Rural Electric Authority, Farm Subsidies, the Interstate Highway System, every war ever fought by the U.S., a public education system, irrigation projects, law enforcement and a thousand other things where the collective has bridled the greedy, reined them in, put them in the "Human Resources Department" like all the people who work for them and who actually do all the heavy lifting. I could go on about how, contrary to the myths we tell about ourselves, the laws of physics dictate that you cannot reach down, grab your own bootstraps and pull your self up. I could explain how these swashbuckling, entrepreneurial, self-made, risk-taking, captains of daring-do like the Koch Brothers are full of self-delusional BS and just because they can buy up half of Montana does not mean they earned it by the sweat of their brow or superior business sense, but here we are talking about wildlife and the public domain, so lets get back to that:

*Before* the new valuation methodology (money, capitalism, supply/demand, etc.) there was abundant wildlife. Capitalism did not save wildlife; it brought wildlife to it's knees. It was the collective that came in and saved wildlife utilizing a valuation methodology not based on money. Does wildlife have a monetary value? Yes, but that is not the sole value. The market places a value on each of your limbs, digits, organs and mental abilities: just ask Worker's Comp, and check the values set by courts for loss. But would you say your loved one is worth what is to be paid to you should they be killed by a tortfeasor, or suffer loss of capacity? No, because you recognize a value beyond money, don't you?

What then, is so hard about understanding that Teddy Roosevelt, the Boone and Crockett Club, and countless other individuals and organizations successfully lobbied the collective to protect our wildlife heritage for reasons beyond money?

Finally, as to land, it is called "The Public Domain." The very definition of Public Domain is land held in trust for the public. In our case, the trust is held by the collective and the duty is NOT solely fiduciary. Can we consider money, like logging, mining, homesteading, etc? Yes, but just as any other trust can (although not all do), this trust entails considerations that go far beyond simple money. Those people have to prove up; it is not just tossed to the winds for cash.

So, next time you are tempted to fall for a capitalist narrative about himself, just remember your bridle. He is nothing without a bridle. Unbridled, he is food,or will be soon enough.