JohnCushman
Well-known member
Thank you!
Is it OKay to trash some public land?
- Thread starter MTGomer
- Start date
- Status
Thank you!
belly-deep
Active member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 3,459
To answer your question, I think there are a few reasons.
1) This is an isolated, large-scale event. Meaning, when all of the protesters go home, the government will be able to come in, on the tax payer's dime, and clean it up relatively quickly. If they failed to enforce similar laws across the nation as a whole, there would be a little mess everywhere, which would be much harder to clean up.
2) Which lead to the next point: demonstrations and protests are a little different, in a free speech society, from wanton disregard of laws just for the sake of laziness. Not that either is justification, but I think our government is a little more lax when there is a motive behind the gather and the pollution is a by-product.
3) Which leads to the final point: the current administration is probably more tolerant of such things. I'd be inclined to say there are political sympathies with the tribe, but the government's inaction on the Bundy stuff makes me think that Obama's approach is to let protesters protest regardless of political affiliation. I doubt if Trump will tolerate this kind of stuff, but we'll see.
My apologies for starting a thread that had the potential to skew off topic in the manner that it did.
Like I said, the point was not to argue the merits of pipeline good - pipeline bad. It was to point out the glaring and in my opinion disgusting parallels between thousands slobs ruining our public land in North Dakota with until recently, no consequence - and that of the Malheur occupation, which drew the attention of nearly everyone on this page, causing probably a dozen threads, hundreds if not thousands of comments -including many from you, and collectively tens of thousands of views.
I thought it was relevant certainly to public lands and indirectly to public land hunting, especially as it relates to the arbitrary enforcement of a 14 day camping limit on public lands.
If you don't think it is relevant, it is your forum and my feelings won't be hurt if you delete/lock it.
Again - sorry for the tangential nature it devolved to.
Malheur was a 'protest' that was fueled by an anti-public lands movement. HUGE difference, and the reason why a public land hunting forum was up in arms over it.
Yes, both protests are damaging public lands, but that's the only similarity they hold in regards to public lands.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Nailed it...^^^^
James Riley
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 1,821
Had it been allowed to continue, this thread could have gone deep into a schism within the environmental community and the issue of why they (Sierra Club, for example), and their vendors (REI, for example), are not always in line with the hunting community, much less each other (environmental racism and the urban/rural split has caused many folks to leave those environmental groups).
It could have also gone into the issue raised by MTGomer about human population (Bismark vs the southern route) and our society's desire to use our public lands as a dumping ground for unsavory activities which benefit populated urban environments at the expense of small and relatively voiceless constituencies. From USFS “View Sheds”, to military training, to hazardous waste disposal facilities to utility and access easements and the list goes on, our population growth and so-called “progress” and the loss of a hunting constituency, are all a part of it. “The wide open spaces are closing in quickly under the weight of the whole human race.” Dee Moeller.
But the real directly hunting-relevant issue raised by MTGomer's question is the natural but illogical human desire to allow ones personal feelings of revulsion toward the appearance, demeanor, conduct and sympathies of “the other” to interfere with an ability to ally with them on common issues, all while taking the side of the opposition just because we'd rather have a beer with them. “By God, I'll continue to vote for them as they cut my throat because, well, they look, sound and act like me.” Just look at the recent elections. Cognitive Dissonance: the most uncomfortable topic on this board.
The only difference between this thread and the one on the Bundys is few here were siding with the Bundys. Here we have a disagreement and that makes you uncomfortable. For someone who struggles so mightily with a failed effort to unite a constituency to pressure elected officials for our rights between election cycles, while at the same time objecting to citizen petitions/initiatives designed to over-ride those intentionally deaf and UN-responsive, bought-and-paid-for officials, I find it incongruous. Especially when the citizens who work on these initiatives are using way more of that time, money and energy which you seem to demand, than does “kicking teeth” and twisting arms and pleading/begging with those same officials. You might think if those energies were devoted to kicking teeth and pleading then they'd be more effective. But they know better. In fact, that is the only reason they chose the initiative route and that is the very reason that route was created in the first place. I'd think you'd be more open to exploring these schisms; especially as the relative numbers of hunters continues to decline, the elected officials become more bought and those “others” that we find personally offensive (but who agree with us on public lands) are growing in numbers. (Sun Tsu has some instruction on the bend/break issue).
Which brings me to the final relevance of this thread to hunting: MTGomer would like to make the point that environmental degradation here is no different than environmental degradation there. But he didn't simply make that point; instead he asked why anyone could see a difference. He was told why some could see a difference.
This entire thread IS about public lands and it IS relevant to the sub-board “Public Lands Issues”. None of the opinions are invalid and nothing about it is tangential, bickering, nit-picking, silly, or a peeing contest. And, as is often said by others on this board, no one forces anyone to read or participate in a given thread. The only sin of this thread is that it makes some folks uncomfortable. Heaven forbid a man should be uncomfortable in his own house. But I didn't know this place was a house or a home. What is written is my opinion, and my opinion only.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
― O. Henry
James Riley
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 1,821
True. Said another way: "A just and peaceful society depends on hypocrites who ultimately refused to abandon the ideals they betray." Gerson.
No discomfort here. Disagreements don't make me feel uncomfortable. I purposefully seek out differing opinions as they help me see the world in ways I might have been oblivious to. People arrogantly telling others when they are "uncomfortable" and why they are "uncomfortable" doesn't make me uncomfortable either. Rather, such comments make me again question why I have a long tolerance for people who communicate the way you have here and how you have on many other threads.
The arrogance you convey to others of differing opinions, whether intentional or unintentional, is not welcome in "this house," or whatever you want to call this place. Just part of the rules set by the guy who owns it. If you don't like it, go join some other forum.
Yes, MTGomer was here making a point, which is why the original post was allowed to stay there. We do make progress when new points are made, discussed, and considered. That is not what happened in this thread or many others you seem to be eager to participate in. Rather than being beneficial and focusing on the original post, as often happens, people could not resist the temptation and took this thread to its eventual situation.
If the thread had stayed on the original path a lot of good may have come of it. It could have taken on many of the topics you mention. Not sure why you decided not to interject the other valid issues you now mention as being pertinent to the discussion. But, like many of the threads you jump into, this one has followed a similar path.
I get the notion that you don't like the way the owner operates this forum. Given that, I suggest you build your own "house" that can be a place of advocacy for public land issues you find important. You can run it how you want, have your own rules, and make it your labor of love. And when folks come along and criticize how you operate "your house" and when they dislike the vision you have for how "your house" can be a place for public land advocacy, you can do as you please with those who don't like your vision or the rules you have in place to accomplish that vision.
James Riley
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 1,821
Chronology is important, as well as reading the tone and the language used in the posts to which I was responding: liberal hippie, hypocrites, etc. Apparently others get a pass on their arrogance, dishing it out but not taking it. This was not MTGomer's first pass at this issue. If you recall he made a stab at it in another thread some time ago, but I and others did not bite. This time he was asking for a response and, as I have explained, he got one that was on-point and specifically relevant to his question. His later point about population did not come until after SA had stepped in on your behalf. That is how discussions progress, when not arbitrarily shut down. My other "valid issues" only came out in response to your previous post. As is most often the case, I limit my responses to the prior post.
The record speaks for itself. Your post chastising us, to which I just responded, as well as this one calling "arrogance" instead of responding to the merits of any post on this thread, by anyone, proves your discomfort. The fact that you don't find my response to MTGomer "beneficial" or responsive to the original post is your subjective mistake and demonstrates your discomfort with disagreement, or, at worst, your bias. You make these bald-faced accusations about my posts but you don't address the merits of any post, much less the tenor of those to whom I was responding.
Specifically, HOW does my response fail to specifically address his question? How is it not beneficial to anyone not aware of American history and the views of the protesters? Take that up and you demonstrate an interest in differing opinions. Until then, the exercise of your powers is arbitrary and capricious.
You make a good point about me leaving. While engaging folks on the merits of what they say and how they say is what I do, I'll not subject myself to those who give them a pass on how they say it, then attack how I say what I say, all while totally ignoring the merits of what I say.
I've tried to leave before, but in my weakness I've failed. Perhaps you would do me the favor, Big Finn. In anticipation of your grace in this regard, I thank you. In closing, thanks to all have engaged in a free and open encounter. Bye bye and good luck in your efforts to protect our public lands hunting legacy.
The record speaks for itself. Your post chastising us, to which I just responded, as well as this one calling "arrogance" instead of responding to the merits of any post on this thread, by anyone, proves your discomfort. The fact that you don't find my response to MTGomer "beneficial" or responsive to the original post is your subjective mistake and demonstrates your discomfort with disagreement, or, at worst, your bias. You make these bald-faced accusations about my posts but you don't address the merits of any post, much less the tenor of those to whom I was responding.
Specifically, HOW does my response fail to specifically address his question? How is it not beneficial to anyone not aware of American history and the views of the protesters? Take that up and you demonstrate an interest in differing opinions. Until then, the exercise of your powers is arbitrary and capricious.
You make a good point about me leaving. While engaging folks on the merits of what they say and how they say is what I do, I'll not subject myself to those who give them a pass on how they say it, then attack how I say what I say, all while totally ignoring the merits of what I say.
I've tried to leave before, but in my weakness I've failed. Perhaps you would do me the favor, Big Finn. In anticipation of your grace in this regard, I thank you. In closing, thanks to all have engaged in a free and open encounter. Bye bye and good luck in your efforts to protect our public lands hunting legacy.
LuketheDog
Well-known member
Ahhhh, one of those "gotta have the last word no matter what" types...
Thanks Randy for running a great forum!
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Intentional or unintentional, still arrogance exceeded only by verbosity.
belly-deep
Active member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 3,459
Some know when to quit. Others, not so much...
Don't let the door hit your @$$ on the way out.
James Riley
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 1,821
LOL! I forgot about all the pandering sycophants who crawl out of the wood work when they think it's safe. But remember, it's not arrogance if it's not exaggerated. LOL
This thread has lost any useful value. Locked.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
