Posted on 05/11/2005 1:50:08 PM PDT by freebilly
"Say, aren't you the one who posted links to gossip rags about Princess Diana?
Funny how you Demonized her."
Charles and Camilla were being demonized and any link I posted was to demonstrate that she was not an angel, blameless and morally untarnished. Then again, the ISSUE was that I said all people concerned about the enviornment cannot be placed in a category with a few extremists to discredit an issue, just as placing all pro-life people in a category with abortion doctor killers does not change the fact that abortion is the taking of an innocent life.
"And when you burn houses, equipment, drive spikes into trees to cause damage to lumber mill sawblades and cause death, it is quite easy to disagree with them.
You might want to choose your heroes a little better.:
Please show me where I said eco-terrorists are my heroes? You really need to show me where I said this before making such an outrageous statement. I never said such a thing, I indicated that as a conservationist and angler, I am concerned about the killing of these fish who are badly threatened in my region.
I said people concerned about the environment are not terrorists and cannot be linked in with them, any more than an average Arab can be linked with terrorists. My post was directed toward bringing people back down to earth and to illustrate the illogic of environmentalists having a motive to kill off fish they have been trying to save for decades. Also, I correctly pointed out that any eco-terrorist action directed toward saving salmon would involve busting dams, not killing fish at a hatchery.
"And isn't it funny how you're chastising me for 'lumping' envirowackies together, and you were gossiping about Princess Diana."
There is no equivalency there. You were probably gossiping about Camilla and making fun of her because she is an older woman who isn't as beautiful as we expect Princesses to be.
I showed that Diana was no angel, and that is true. Even in your post above, you infer that average people concerned about the envioronment are linked with those who spike trees, burn bulldozers and murder people. It aint the same.
I donate money to the nature conservancy, pay fishing license fees, and promote nature. So you will understand that I am offended by your claim that I am in favor of eco-terrorism.
"ELF is famous for burning houses, Earth First is famous for burning houses.
Both groups have killed ppeople."
Ok, where do earth firth and ELF come in here? If involved, which is highly doubtful, they wouldn't kill fish at a hatchery, they would bust dams to save salmon.
"No, it is not a simple matter of disagreement, it is a matter of right and wrong, and who is more important people or animals."
Why does an issue of someone killing fish have anything to do with "people vs. animals?" It would seem to me that killing these steelhead hurts people too.
"ELF, Earth First, and envirowackies in general see ALL human technology as a threat to pristine peaceful animals living in harmony with nature and each other."
I agree that dams, freeways, mass developments, etc.. are a threat to animals. It doesn't take an "enviro-whacko" to see this. In fact, most hunters and anglers agree. Why then aren't they called enviro-whackos? They don't like overgrazing or erosion either and they promote things such as natural corridors as well, to allow for wild animals to have unbroken wilderness areas when developers home in on a natural area. So why don't you call them whackos? Because they hunt? When I take my camera with me to photograph wildlife I am hunting too, non-lethally.
"Build wind turbines for electricity?
NEVER!
WHy not?
"Birds MIGHT fly into them and be killed!"
Pebble bed nuclear reactors that are pretty much meltdown proof?
Not on your life!
Why not?
"Nuclear power is an evil in all it's forms!"
I promote nuclear energy and natural gas. Few conservationists oppose wind turbines.
"Again, I used ot BE an enviro.
Trying to feed me a line of BS about how I'm over-reacting and jumping to conclusions on envirowackies won't work."
It's not a line. You are taking the most extreme positions from the smallest, most extreme groups and claiming all environmentalists share their views. They do not.
"Obviously, you didn't follow the conversation.
"They" are "ELF", "Earth First" and the general population of the enviroWACKIES."
Which conversation? ELF and earth first have not been linked to these crimes, as far as I know. I dislike them as much as you, only I don't draw the same conclusion that all environmentalists are envirowackies. For instance, I live on 30 acres. I don't have any desire to cut down the trees, and if I do, they will be dead trees and I will burn the remains after the cut. If the tree is dead and an owl is using it, I will not cut it. Does that make me an "enviorowhackie?" When I fish and hook a bass who is ready to spawn, I release the bass. Is that whackie? When I see a coyote or other so-called "varmint,"
I will not shoot it, because I recognize it's place in the ecosystem. If it threatens any of my animals, I will fire warning shots and if that doesn't work I will kill it. If I see a rattlesnake I will not kill it unless it is on my property or near a home that has children. Am I whackie for not killing a snake on my trail while going fishing?
I promote the use of alternative energy and I really don't like overgrazing. I don't like the city and prefer developers don't turn my small town into one. Does that make me whackie? When I see a car belching smoke, I don't think about how forest fires cause more pollution. When I see a herd of deer, I thank God for that privelege rather than wanting to replace those deer with another herd of people. Maybe you think that's whackie, but I don't.
"You don't know diddly about these people, or me."
I don't know diddly about you, but I was an active environmentalist for a decade or more. I know alot about them. I don't work with them anymore because I don't like the direction they are taking and I don't like the fact that they don't respect others' rights to enjoy the wilderness.
"Then why, pray tell, are so many of their policies inevitably destructive to the fish? They think whatever they are told to think buy a professorate and bureaucrats with vested interests in the outcome, not to mention politicians who make a good buck pleasing the corporate interests that cash in on the game."
That's part of why I left the movement. These species consevaration plans often do not protect nature because there are no scientists verifying that they will.
"When your friend has spent $250,000 on land and improvements, spent fifteen weeks solid bent over weeding, when your friend is willing to hang off the end of a rope over a cliff to do it, then I'll know he "cares." Until then, he's doing his volunteer work for self aggrandizement and the sheer pleasure of controlling other people's land."
Well excuse him for being poor and not being able to shell out $250,000 to restore habitat. And what makes you think he is doing this out of "self-aggrandizement" or a desire to "control other people's land?" You don't know him, and you are apparantly unaware that his work is on public land, not yours. He is a retired botanist, and just because he is doing this in his retirement doesn't make him evil for not accepting money for his work. Older people, when they retire, do volunteer work often. Why have you decided to dislike my friend? He doesn't crawl around on private property or file lawsuits. He is an older man who has decided to do this instead of working at a VFW thrift shop or picking up trash on the highway. Who are you to judge his interests?
"It's very easy to show that your friend is very likely to be a plant killer."
Again, you have decided to dislike my friend, for no reason, and the only info I gave you was that every spring, he drives through California taking photos of wildflowers and donating them to museums. I am baffled. I can't see why your long reply seems aimed at discrediting him for his hobby.
"Here's how: Take tarweed for example. This is a species that is endangered in Santa Cruz County. Never mind that it probably isn't a separate species and produces viable hybrids, let's just presume it is in trouble. Well, what do the econuts have codified into law?"
Wait a minute. You have classified this botanist as an eco nut, simply because he takes pictures of flowers and categorizes them.
"They have the land where there is tarweed REQUIRED to be preserved, and not touched. Too bad for them that the plant REQUIRES occasional disturbance to survive. It pops up all over wherever a bulldozer has broken up the surface. Worse, a no disturbance policy absolutely guarantees eventual weed infestation and thereafter, extinction."
I assure you my friend knows full well (30 years of study) where plants, grasses and flowers belong. He is an expert on all of the above. I assure you he knows where tarweed should and shouldn't be and what helps it grow and what doesn't. For instance, there is a road that was cut into a hill near where I live, and as a result, it is very rich in wildflower diversity. He said he was glad they cut the road, whereas you probably think he wants to move the mountain back over it. You have my friend pegged wrong.
"Most plants on the endangered list in California are either threatened by weeds or are post disturbance (early succession) species."
That is obvious. But there are reasons why weeds grow in certain areas. Overgrazing can cause this, as it has on my family's property. My rancher uncle is the one who told me this, not an eco-nut.
"That's how stupid and destructive these people are, and clearly, so are you to have taken such a pompous position without knowing what you are talking about or whom you are addressing. Your covetous greed to control other people's property without any accountability for the consequences makes me puke."
Please explain to me where I said anything that would indicate that I desire to control anyone's private property.
You will have a hard time finding that, because it doesn't exist. I suspect you have drawn conclusions about me because I favor wildlife conservation, but donating money to BUY land, or being concerned about the steelhead population is NOT the same as telling my neighbor not to cut a tree down.
"Read the tagline, and repent."
Repent of what? Am I supposed to hate nature because I believe in Jesus? What has paying fishing license fees or saying I don't want my community to turn into a city have to do with sin? Should my friend repent for his wildflower hobby?
If I am wrong I will say "I was wrong," as I do do when proven wrong. Will you retract if it is found that a disturbed earth firster didn't do it? I doubt it.
Only if he's another one of them disrespectful, trespassing, litigating Posey Pluckers!!!
Sorry, I just couldn't resist butting in... Carry on!!!
Well, it looks like someone woke you up with your panties in a bunch. I've issued retractions when I made an error, and without others telling me it was necessary. Anything else, Mr. Pious?
I apologise for the Mr. Pious remark. That was uncalled for.
Yes, PETA would. I think they would rather a species be extinct...( NOT, steelhead/rainbow trout will be..) than for humans to catch and eat them.
There are environmentalists, and then there are environmentalists.........apparently you know the former, and not the latter.
FRegards,
I'll bet you one cocklebur and two dog ticks...you are most certainly dead wrong.
Wanna bet?
"Well, it looks like someone woke you up with your panties in a bunch. I've issued retractions when I made an error, and without others telling me it was necessary. Anything else, Mr. Pious?"
I am a Ms.
I don't see the problem with anything I have said. I suspect a few people have made really bad assumptions here and instead of admitting they are wrong, they are throwing out charges hoping one will stick. None of em do. If I, or my friend are pro-environment and hurt no one, there is no issue because this is the USA and we can think as we wish and care about what we wish.
I apparantly do have to tell you and others they are in error, because I said nothing you charged me with saying. I have every right to defend myself. You have basically called me an eco-terrorist sympathizer and I highly resent it. My friend, whose hobby is photographing wildflowers, did nothing at all to offend you or anyone, but is attacked here, merely because I said he travels California photographing wildflowerrs. A BENIGN and wholesome hobby, I'd say. But you and others think he's a bad person for doing so, making hysterical allegations against him based on NOTHING. This is the most ridiculous thing I have had to defend here, with a few exceptions.
Did I call you anti-nature? That would be the equivalent of the charges you made, but I know to look at the facts first and not say something I do not know to be true. Therefore I have nothing to apologize for. You do. Instead of doing so, you call me pious.
Thank you. Apology accepted. I apologize if I said anything to offend you.
"Yes, PETA would. I think they would rather a species be extinct...( NOT, steelhead/rainbow trout will be..) than for humans to catch and eat them."
I'm torn on this one, but you could have something there. I know one member, and he opposes my fishing, and gives me kind of a hard time about it. Once he mimicked a worm on a hook, and I must admit I laughed. Unfortunately I think of this when fishing.
But the man has 8 homeless cats he adopted. I respect him for that. He asked to borrow my gun today to murder mistletoe on his oak trees.
I bet the perp was an employee who put bleach in there on accident.
You are just jacking around with us, aren't ya!
I'll take that bet....
What do you have that's worth anything? Got any beaver or otter pelts? Snake skins...? How about some turkey spurs? Got any of those?
lol!!
Well, give me some time on the snake skins. Haven't come across any yet. I'll try to hit the head with my snakeshot, but if circumstances demand I use an axe or shovel, my accuracy could be wanting......
I don't kill beavers or otters. They're too cute and cuddly. I don't know what turkey spurs are, but we've got wild turkeys all over the property, but they got scared off when my uncle took some bad shots (cataracts) at 'em. I am not a hunter and never killed a mammal. But he has informed me that if I want good turkey, I'll have to kill it. We'll know when they come around again if I have the heart to pull the trigger.
"You are just jacking around with us, aren't ya!"
No! I tell the truth.
He wants to use my gun to shoot mistletoe, and he added that he'll need shooting glasses and earplugs. He does know how to shoot, and more puzzling, he is an English immigrant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.