The Struggle Not Over

[ness]

I appreciate Ron for bringing the issue to our attention. But, I think the danger has been exaggerated. I want solid information to base decisions on. When the facts are shown to be inaccurate, I am skeptical of the rest of the argument. Simply put, Ron has made too much of this whole thing, and that means people will discount his arguments. Me included.

There are bills every year that take aim at the MDC. He told us all that passage at the committee level insured a vote. That is just wrong. The leadership determines what is voted on. All the bills in question died before a vote. The deer as livestock issue is what it is. But it does't mean every bill aimed at gutting the MDC is as viable.

Ron has the right idea, but he undermines the effort by overstating the danger. Five or more threads here about the imminent decimation of the MDC, coupled with the unnecessary calling out of the MSA because they were a little slow responding to his call to come to the capitol, make him seem like a crack pot, not a real voice for conservation. Sorry, but you asked.

When Ron goes ballistic on me for suggesting there is another way to do this, and calls me out suggesting I'm nothing more than a slug with a keyboard, well...I'm not listening. And he hurts his argument. Ron -- you've never directly responded to my questions - just started another thread.

As for your response OTF -- I just don't care. You're arguing the obvious, but over arguing it. Flowery responses are great -- but bullshit is bullshit.

You guys keep up with your screaming about how the outdoors is gonna be taken away from us and you can feel great when you get a couple crazy folks screaming you're right. But I'm more practical -- I'll fight when the danger is real.

[ozark trout fisher]

You guys keep up with your screaming about how the outdoors is gonna be taken away from us and you can feel great when you get a couple crazy folks screaming you're right. But I'm more practical -- I'll fight when the danger is real.

I don't know what you're upset about. That you wrote a couple letters saying that you opposed a bill that didn't end up getting voted on? What exactly did you give up? My guess (besides a few minutes/possibly hours) is nothing.

Listen, I don't read every single one of these threads, because I already have a solid handle on what is going on in Jeff City. So I don't know the entirety of what the OP said. I do know that there are always a bunch of potentially debilitating bills that are constantly being proposed. Most of them will get nowhere. Some of them will (I've presented one key example, but there will be others.) Most of the time, it's not easy to tell which is which. So as long as the folks in Jeff City see fit to keep churning these bills out like they're going out of style, we have to stay on high alert...and yes, keep writing letters, and occasionally showing up to events in Jeff City like the recent Conservation Day. Leaders of conservation organizations excepted, no one (certainly including me) is giving up a dang thing besides an ultimately insignificant amount of time. Even if the year to year danger is relatively low (especially with the current governor vetoing most of the blatantly offensive bills) there is no harm that can come from keeping the voice of conservation-minded folks at the forefront when those on the other side constantly have a forum in the state capital to air their opinions.

Your last line is unnecessarily bitter and angry. No idea where that is coming from, but if you are so inconvenienced by someone requesting you write a letter, you are free to sit out. It sounds like that's what you'd prefer.

[ness]

Who says I'm upset?

Flowery bullshit noted, but ignored. Go pick a fight with someone who cares.

[ozark trout fisher]

Who says I'm upset?

Flowery bullshit noted, but ignored.

Wow, okay bud.

It certainly seems this is going nowhere fast, so good night.

[ozark trout fisher]

Though I think I may have to add that to my "member title" along with that bloviating comment from a while back.

Rapidly remembering why I was gone for a few months.

[ness]

Wow, okay bud.

It certainly seems this is going nowhere fast, so good night.

Yep. You're a tad late, but that's ok.

[ozark trout fisher]

Yep. You're a tad late, but that's ok.

I will simply note that I phrased my response in such a way to insure that we could have a respectful discussion. Guess that got lost.

I've learned not to be thin-skinned here, but I didn't necessarily expect that from you. Just being honest.

[ness]

I will simply note that I phrased my response in such a way to insure that we could have a respectful discussion. Guess that got lost.

Really -- do you ever read what you post?

I don't know what you're upset about. That you wrote a couple letters saying that you opposed a bill that didn't end up getting voted on? What exactly did you give up? My guess (besides a few minutes/possibly hours) is nothing.

Your last line is unnecessarily bitter and angry. No idea where that is coming from, but if you are so inconvenienced by someone requesting you write a letter, you are free to sit out. It sounds like that's what you'd prefer.

How should I take that? Don't bother answering -- I really don't care. Honestly.

[ozark trout fisher]

Really -- do you ever read what you post?

How should I take that? Don't bother answering -- I really don't care. Honestly.

I clearly touched a nerve. Apologies. Moving on.

[drew03cmc]

You both have a valid point, but OTF, you have to see what Ness is saying. He is simply saying that the sheer number of threads about proposed legislation is enough to cause one to ignore them all. The titles are sensationalistic to say the least and act as nothing more than click bait. I quit reading them when it was a new threat to outdoor enjoyment every week. I almost regret clicking on this one. I love the Ozarks and don't want anything to get in the way of my time down there, scarce as it is, but give us a break with the Chicken Little thread titles and conjecture of what could happen.