Discuss What's Right And Wrong With Governing Rules And Laws

[Tim Smith]

What follows here is offered with full respect and just because it is direct, I hope it won't be seen as confrontational. I have (helped) administrate a forum or 2 and I recongnize the frustrations involved in that process. It is my impression there are level-headed people in charge here so I'm going to try to broach this here.

I see in a recent warning post from the administrator what might be seen as a threat to shut down either the conservation forum or perhaps ban certain individuals. However far that extends it's pretty clear that "group hug" a month or so ago hasn't made these topics any less rocky and the administrators are getting tired of dealing with the conflict here.

However, as the title here points out, cutting controversial topics (especially politics) out of the conservation forum probably isn't possible.

Government is political in its nature.

The recent thread that got shut down just (justifiably) beat up a state senator who seems to have a vendetta against the MDC and is trying to shut it down. Any conservation group worth its salt would have taken that even further and would be shoveling money and support at any yellow dog (from any party) that runs against him in the next election. That's political.

The hatchery issue involves government funding. That's political.

The climate change debate may have run its course and I'm happy to leave it alone (for now), but there will be more current events on that topic in the future and you can bet they will be relevant to southern Mid-American inland fisheries...and some parts of that will probably be political.

How do you have a conservation forum without some level of politics and some level of conflict.

I fully recongnize that conservation forums (on angling sites) tend to be a special headache. Some people are more or less rabid about the topic (for instance, me). I can catch fish just about anywhere on any tackle and I'm just not interested in the virtues of a wiggle wart vs a rebel craw. Others feel the opposite and just want to be left alone to fish. I think those people should get involved with conservation too, but that's up to them and I think most people recognize that there's some kind of balance to be achieved between the two.

I think that's an important balance to achieve. As a person who is heavily involved in conservation off the forum, who has seen internet forums DIRECTLY affect public opinion and the the quality of fisheries and the environment I would hate to see an active, functional forum undone. The notion that no one changes their minds or nothing ever changes because of what they read here simply isn't true. This is what democracy looks like (in all its misshappen glory).

How do we do this better?

What do we do to make this forum less of a burden?

How do we talk about government without talking about politics?

Surely we can do this without limiting ourselves to irrelevant issues?

[troutfiend1985]

How do we do this better?

Leave out names of talk show hosts, don't bring up donkeys, elephants, political theories or presidents, don't reference political agendas heard on the radio/tv, don't threaten to shoot each other, don't bring up social sytems that don't pertain to conservation and don't bring up global warming.

What do we do to make this forum less of a burden?

Read above.

How do we talk about government without talking about politics?

We talk about the MDC, MDC is a seperate entity from politics IMO. Yes MDC is a governmental body in MO, but it doesn't have elections, red ties and voting campaigns. So, what is right and wrong with the MDC would probably be fine, what is right and wrong with the president, congress, supreme court, MO legislature, welfare, SS, etc. would be irrelevant.

Surely we can do this without limiting ourselves to irrelevant issues?

What is relevant? This is a fishing forum, this thread is dedicated to conservation issues. Thus what would be relevant is conservation issues involving fishing and hunting. Expressing a view on global warming is not a conservation issue directly relevant to fishing IMO(note, I said in my opinion) because it is not limited to fishing/hunting. Does that make sense, it's a fine line. What would be relevant, stream improvements, issues involving federal action on dams is relevant but it's not relevant to bash a local representative or congressman who we/you/I think are dictators.

I not getting at you Tim, this is just what I see going on with the whole conservation forums. C&R, length limits, whether we should have stockings in urban trout programs etc. is very relevant. I think what is going on here is we are starting issues that are relevant and then are hijacked by political agendas. There are political websites.

Maybe I'm over the top but I think this type of stuff above is what is giving Lilley a headache.

[eric1978]

I applaud your optimism, Tim, but discussing conservation without discussing government is impossible, and discussing government without discussing politics is impossible...they go hand in hand in hand and they're inherently linked. I for one don't get offended by political debate, as fiercely as I may disagree with some folks, but there are many who can't handle it and think the sky is falling when we engage in spirited debate. I'm like you, I can completely do without the "best color crankbaits," or "what size jig do you throw" threads...they leave me aching with boredom. I find the conservation issues far more interesting and accessible to conversation.

But I'll continue to remain as absent from the god/guns/gays/gov't threads as my impulsive fingers will allow, and cheer for the truth silently from the sidelines.

[Smalliebigs]

I applaud your optimism, Tim, but discussing conservation without discussing government is impossible, and discussing government without discussing politics is impossible...they go hand in hand in hand and they're inherently linked. I for one don't get offended by political debate, as fiercely as I may disagree with some folks, but there are many who can't handle it and think the sky is falling when we engage in spirited debate. I'm like you, I can completely do without the "best color crankbaits," or "what size jig do you throw" threads...they leave me aching with boredom. I find the conservation issues far more interesting and accessible to conversation.

But I'll continue to remain as absent from the god/guns/gays/gov't threads as my impulsive fingers will allow, and cheer for the truth silently from the sidelines.

Aww, E that really sucks that you don't participate or stay by the sideline. E and I don't see eye to eye on most political issues and we still get along.We can give each other crap about it too and we don't care, he can still always man the front of my Seaark whenever he wants and we'll share some beers and probally laugh our asses off making fun of each other. Some of the guys on this forum are very sensetive and thin skinned.

It's just a fishing forum.....but a darn good one in my opinion were not trying to save the world here.

[troutfiend1985]

Aww, E that really sucks that you don't participate or stay by the sideline. E and I don't see eye to eye on most political issues and we still get along.We can give each other crap about it too and we don't care, he can still always man the front of my Seaark whenever he wants and we'll share some beers and probally laugh our asses off making fun of each other. Some of the guys on this forum are very sensetive and thin skinned.

It's just a fishing forum.....but a darn good one in my opinion were not trying to save the world here.

And see, I think that's right. But I think it's just when we get a little "too" worldwide is when the problem starts. I don't know, just my .02.

However I do reserve the right to verbally abuse Outisde Bend whenever I get the opportunity

[Tim Smith]

I appreciate your approach, TF, and I don't usually take criticism personally so don't worry about contradicting me. Nobody's shooting and I'm not dead yet, so it's all good.

I see the boundaries you're drawing too, but every single one of them is leaky. When a state senator attacks conservation funding, it will put fewer fish in the water and reduce the sustainability resource. That should be an appropriate topic based on the heading of this forum.

We can pretend that stacking rip rap on a bank or anything politically "safe" constitutes the limits of conservation. But it's not.

Eric. I don't disagree that politics and conservation are linked. That's more or less my point. The question I'm asking is how do we deal with those politics without driving the administrators crazy.

...and optimism is the merely the realization we don't really have any options but to try.

[Tim Smith]

And see, I think that's right. But I think it's just when we get a little "too" worldwide is when the problem starts.

...and I think when we get too narrow minded is when the problem starts.

A lot of people will want to sit on the sidelines and that's fine.

But some of us aren't going to do that.

Do we really have to stick our heads in a bucket to post here?

[Don Allenbaugh]

Well ladies and gentlemen it is Mr Lilley's forum and he gets to set the rules and laws. If you want to post on this forum then you adhere to his conditions or you do not post. There are many political forums that you can go to post something "political" if that is what you want to do. In other words if someone doesn't like the rules and laws that Mr Lilley has set down then they can do 1 of 2 things, do not post or go elsewhere.

[eric1978]

The question I'm asking is how do we deal with those politics without driving the administrators crazy.

I don't think we do...we've tried. We either treat this forum as a free-for-all for opinions, and get sent to our rooms without dinner, or realize that it's a privately owned forum and since Phil makes the rules we can follow them or leave. I've been doing my best to keep the latter in mind, though I'll admit it's tough for me.

I think conservation and the relevant political issues pertaining to our fisheries are more important than all of the rest of the topics combined, and I do wish there was some kind of "mosh pit" sub-forum where the controversial threads could go to get hashed out...and people could choose to go there or choose not to.

Just sayin'.

[Tim Smith]

Well ladies and gentlemen it is Mr Lilley's forum and he gets to set the rules and laws. If you want to post on this forum then you adhere to his conditions or you do not post. There are many political forums that you can go to post something "political" if that is what you want to do. In other words if someone doesn't like the rules and laws that Mr Lilley has set down then they can do 1 of 2 things, do not post or go elsewhere.

Don, that misses the point entirely and isn't really helpful.

I am asking what the appropriate lines are between conservation and politics. So far as I can tell Mr. Lilley has not carefully defined those and neither have you.

Sorry if I'm misreading you, but your tone here also makes it seem like you're offended the question is even being posed...

...and frankly, those kinds of emotional reactions are the fundamental problem with political topics, not the politics themselves.