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

[flytyer57]

Some conservation issues can be discussed without politics. A while back there was a thread about some guys in IL dumping crap in the Rock River. We all discussed it and as far as I know of, it did not get political.

Some conservation issues are bound to get political like "global warming" due to the fact that the two sides of the issue are either you believe one side or the other. Of course, those two sides are divided pretty much by what side of the ailse you tend to cast your votes for and what news program you choose to listen to for your information.

Before you post a thread about a conservation issue, you should think of where it will tend to end up. Will it get torn apart by political lines or will it draw a mainstream approach from the obvious majority of us who fish? If it tends toward the political line, then just don't post it.

[Tim Smith]

Some conservation issues can be discussed without politics. A while back there was a thread about some guys in IL dumping crap in the Rock River. We all discussed it and as far as I know of, it did not get political.

Some conservation issues are bound to get political like "global warming" due to the fact that the two sides of the issue are either you believe one side or the other. Of course, those two sides are divided pretty much by what side of the ailse you tend to cast your votes for and what news program you choose to listen to for your information.

Before you post a thread about a conservation issue, you should think of where it will tend to end up. Will it get torn apart by political lines or will it draw a mainstream approach from the obvious majority of us who fish? If it tends toward the political line, then just don't post it.

Here's the problem FT.

As a scientist, I'd like to believe you that you can just confine a discussion to facts and information about a topic. But I've been involved in a lot of those conversations in a lot of contexts where cut and dried science gets smeared as "political". Eventually the weight of the truth will bury those arguments, but it takes a lot of time and effort and an obscene over-abundance of proof to work past some people's denial. Pretty funny you bring up "that" topic because it's an excellent case in point. "That" topic is solidly in the mainstream among scientists, and most of the scientists that I know, fish. And the scientists that fish are explicity concerned about and acting on that particular issue.

That's the basic problem with conservation. It asks people to look objectively at their potential negative effects on a resource of and to limit their effects on that resource. That goes against human nature in some ways. The "mainstream" will always be to defend our personal interests.

Most entities will immediately scream "politics" as soon as it appears they may actually have to change their behaviors. If your Rock River discussion didn't go political, it's only because the people dumping in the river didn't have any defenders on the forum or the effects were bad enough that it was impossible to defend, or subtle enough that they were willing to wear the blame. You name the group and I can point you to examples of their effects on fisheries and then all the reams of reasons they give about how they never did any fish any harm and how some other "political" group is the REAL bad guy.

It's the nature of the beast.

I kind of like Eric's suggestion of a sub-forum where "politics" (however that is defined) have more latitude, but it seems to me the Conservation forum would be that place.

[Trav]

I have been a member of this forum for a number of years now and any topic with a political angle ends up being a "dog pile" discussion.

I am guilty of stirring the pot so I am not throwing rocks in this glass house. Just saying.

The best thing we can do is take a conscience approach to not feed the debates.

[drew03cmc]

Here's the problem FT.

As a scientist, I'd like to believe you that you can just confine a discussion to facts and information about a topic. But I've been involved in a lot of those conversations in a lot of contexts where cut and dried science gets smeared as "political". Eventually the weight of the truth will bury those arguments, but it takes a lot of time and effort and an obscene over-abundance of proof to work past some people's denial. Pretty funny you bring up "that" topic because it's an excellent case in point. "That" topic is solidly in the mainstream among scientists, and most of the scientists that I know, fish. And the scientists that fish are explicitly concerned about and acting on that particular issue.

That's the basic problem with conservation. It asks people to look objectively at their potential negative effects on a resource of and to limit their effects on that resource. That goes against human nature in some ways. The "mainstream" will always be to defend our personal interests.

Most entities will immediately scream "politics" as soon as it appears they may actually have to change their behaviors. If your Rock River discussion didn't go political, it's only because the people dumping in the river didn't have any defenders on the forum or the effects were bad enough that it was impossible to defend, or subtle enough that they were willing to wear the blame. You name the group and I can point you to examples of their effects on fisheries and then all the reams of reasons they give about how they never did any fish any harm and how some other "political" group is the REAL bad guy.

It's the nature of the beast.

I kind of like Eric's suggestion of a sub-forum where "politics" (however that is defined) have more latitude, but it seems to me the Conservation forum would be that place.

That is why Phil has said to lay off political discussion, gl***l wa****g and other subjects. It is his forum, not a public forum, and therefore we play by his rules or go home. It really is that simple.

[troutfiend1985]

Political

a : of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government

: of, relating to, involving, or involved in politics and especially party politics

Conservation

: a careful preservation and Protection of something; especially : planned management of a natural resource to prevent exploitation, destruction, or neglect

Here’s the problem Tim, and this is what I was trying to illustrate before. I’m not posting these definitions here to be a jerk, contrary I’m posting them here to illustrate. Look, when I said world wide view before, it is apparent that Global Warming is not appropriate to this forum. Yes, you can argue that it is conservation and I would agree with you. BUT the problem is that this topic is not directly tied to MDC or streams and lakes, it’s bigger than that which makes it more of a political problem. Why, because look who the front runners are, donkeys, elephants and big oil and green. That is why such large issue topics are not really conservation topics FOR THIS PARTICULAR PRIAVTELY OPERATED THREAD.

How can I say this with a straight face, especially when I refer to MDC, and MDC is a government agency? Because MDC stops the lines at its borders, it doesn’t go past them. You can talk about things that affect MDC, and other like state entities, KDWP etc. But Tim you have to realize that some of these posts are just begging for it, and none more than global warming.

Are you seeing the donkeys and elephants getting upset over stream improvement in Little Piney? No. Are you seeing the two major political parties drawing lines over the federal dam budget cuts? Not really, but when you get into things that are so debatable as global warming, where there are two sides and they both have their heels in the ground, then you get into a whole new ball game.

Look, science has tests that solve problems. This works for science, but real life doesn’t work like that, and this is just going to be a gray issue. You’re probably going to have to ask yourself if this is more government, outside of MDC and like agencies, or is this more red and blue issues? You dig? No black and white here, just a judgment call.

[Tim Smith]

Political

a : of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government

: of, relating to, involving, or involved in politics and especially party politics

Conservation

: a careful preservation and Protection of something; especially : planned management of a natural resource to prevent exploitation, destruction, or neglect

Here’s the problem Tim, and this is what I was trying to illustrate before. I’m not posting these definitions here to be a jerk, contrary I’m posting them here to illustrate. Look, when I said world wide view before, it is apparent that Global Warming is not appropriate to this forum. Yes, you can argue that it is conservation and I would agree with you. BUT the problem is that this topic is not directly tied to MDC or streams and lakes, it’s bigger than that which makes it more of a political problem. Why, because look who the front runners are, donkeys, elephants and big oil and green. That is why such large issue topics are not really conservation topics FOR THIS PARTICULAR PRIAVTELY OPERATED THREAD.

How can I say this with a straight face, especially when I refer to MDC, and MDC is a government agency? Because MDC stops the lines at its borders, it doesn’t go past them. You can talk about things that affect MDC, and other like state entities, KDWP etc. But Tim you have to realize that some of these posts are just begging for it, and none more than global warming.

Are you seeing the donkeys and elephants getting upset over stream improvement in Little Piney? No. Are you seeing the two major political parties drawing lines over the federal dam budget cuts? Not really, but when you get into things that are so debatable as global warming, where there are two sides and they both have their heels in the ground, then you get into a whole new ball game.

Look, science has tests that solve problems. This works for science, but real life doesn’t work like that, and this is just going to be a gray issue. You’re probably going to have to ask yourself if this is more government, outside of MDC and like agencies, or is this more red and blue issues? You dig? No black and white here, just a judgment call.

TF your definition of "political" uses the word "politics" to define itself. You're not putting much effort into this.

This is all pretty much a muddle.

MDC deals directly with "big picture" issues every day, all issues worth discussing are debateable (otherwise just go do what you know to do and why bother to talk about them at all??) and science is very much a part of the real world. It generates information and separates the grey areas into more precisely defined areas of black and white. All that's left after that are the values that decide what's black and what's white.

And what's important here is that this is Lilley's forum. These limits are his to set and his opinions about these limits are what matter.

What are the limits?

[troutfiend1985]

TF your definition of "political" uses the word "politics" to define itself. You're not putting much effort into this.

This is all pretty much a muddle.

MDC deals directly with "big picture" issues every day, all issues worth discussing are debateable (otherwise just go do what you know to do and why bother to talk about them at all??) and science is very much a part of the real world. It generates information and separates the grey areas into more precisely defined areas of black and white. All that's left after that are the values that decide what's black and what's white.

And what's important here is that this is Lilley's forum. These limits are his to set and his opinions about these limits are what matter.

What are the limits?

Tim, Websters dictionary uses this as its secondary definition, and uses the words Politics to illustrate a secondary definition. If you note, the word politics is tied "party." The main definition is that of relating to government, while conservation is protecting and preservation. There's you lines, not hard to follow. And Tim, hate to be a jerk but, have one of those scientific tests you've conducted sorted out what is politics and what is conservation? No, not to my knowledge, thus this is a study of semantics and a gray issue. You're looking for something that doesn't exist. So far everyone else that I've seen on this post is saying that its a issue by issue basis, no hard line rules, thus the difference between science and real life. Laws/Rules/Constitutions are gray buddy. Just going to have to accept that.

Why is it important that this is Lilley's forum? Because it is Lilley who runs the ship, he makes the "laws" that govern this forum. The constitution doesn't apply here, no 1st Amendment because no govenrnment actor. He can kick you off, no big deal. Tim, you can always start up a forum, go through all that work and apply your own defintion and draw your own lines to what is and isn't politics. However, Lilley is under no obligation to put up a list of rules, or play Justice Scalia and draw lines about what is and isn't politics.

I'm done with this, not because I'm mad, but because there is nothing left to say. You have a point but it's moot. Oh well, get on with it and just don't expect people to not get heated about controversial subjects or for Lilley to write out a constitution of sorts for what is and is not politics.

[eric1978]

If you guys are gonna argue, at least make it political wouldja?

That's the thing...seems like half the threads on ANY topic turn into some kind of dispute over semantics or other excrutiating minutiae. What's the difference what the subject matter is at that point?

[troutfiend1985]

If you guys are gonna argue, at least make it political wouldja?

That's the thing...seems like half the threads on ANY topic turn into some kind of dispute over semantics or other excrutiating minutiae. What's the difference what the subject matter is at that point?

All I'm trying to get across is that this is Lilley's rules, and that there aren't clear lines of politics/non-politics. I put up some things in the beginining that tried to illustrate the point, but there is no hard line.

And you're right about who cares if its political, an argument is an argument, but I didn't bring up the "shall not be named" topic

Hey, c'mon Eric you like to argue too

[drew03cmc]

All I'm trying to get across is that this is Lilley's rules, and that there aren't clear lines of politics/non-politics. I put up some things in the beginining that tried to illustrate the point, but there is no hard line.

And you're right about who cares if its political, an argument is an argument, but I didn't bring up the "shall not be named" topic

Hey, c'mon Eric you like to argue too

Eric, argue? No way...me, argue, nope...TF, argue, never...

Now that that is sorted out, all we have to say is we are playing on Phil's court, with Phil's ball (sorry, bad choice of words) and by Phil's rules. If we don't like it, we can leave.