Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Pittsburgh (via Chicago, via Pittsburgh)
3,887 posts, read 5,531,823 times
Reputation: 3107
Advertisements
Hunters and anglers should be a key population that those who are pushing for better environmental policy should focus on. Those who follow their respective state's rules and regulations regarding hunting and fishing are generally following guidelines that are designed to help the local environment, and much of the revenue that goes into sportsmanship licensure goes into local environmental conservation and research. Sportsmen/women completely depend on a healthy environment to enjoy their sport (whether they recognize it or not). Many of them fall to the right of the political spectrum on many issues (the environment being one of them, ironically). I believe that there needs to be more outreach, education and awareness effort made to the outdoor sportsman population in terms of supporting environmental policy that is beneficial. It is a huge untapped population that may help bridge the divide between Right and Left on environmental political issues. Both a rural Republican angler and Democrat who lives in Philadelphia should support policy that improves the health of native brook trout streams in North Central Pennsylvania, for example.
So, they are going to be key in addressing large scale pollution from the likes of China, or concrete production, or if wanting to view per capita, lifestyle of millions of people?
Location: Pittsburgh (via Chicago, via Pittsburgh)
3,887 posts, read 5,531,823 times
Reputation: 3107
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus
So, they are going to be key in addressing large scale pollution from the likes of China, or concrete production, or if wanting to view per capita, lifestyle of millions of people?
No, but they have huge impact on policy decisions that are made in a lot of localities/states that contain some of our most precious natural resources. Maybe I should have been more clear that I'm referring to local/state/national environmental policies/regulations within the US. Not every statement is about changing global production of carbon, at least I assumed it wouldn't in a "Green Living" forum.
Hunters and anglers should be a key population that those who are pushing for better environmental policy should focus on. Those who follow their respective state's rules and regulations regarding hunting and fishing are generally following guidelines that are designed to help the local environment, and much of the revenue that goes into sportsmanship licensure goes into local environmental conservation and research. Sportsmen/women completely depend on a healthy environment to enjoy their sport (whether they recognize it or not). Many of them fall to the right of the political spectrum on many issues (the environment being one of them, ironically). I believe that there needs to be more outreach, education and awareness effort made to the outdoor sportsman population in terms of supporting environmental policy that is beneficial. It is a huge untapped population that may help bridge the divide between Right and Left on environmental political issues. Both a rural Republican angler and Democrat who lives in Philadelphia should support policy that improves the health of native brook trout streams in North Central Pennsylvania, for example.
Contrary to your opinion, many of those who are avid hunters and fishers are far more aware of the environment than those who live in stacked buildings in cities telling everyone else how they should care about the environment.
You can't be a good hunter or fisherman if you don't know jack all about the environment.
People on the right do care about the environment. What they don't care for are busy bodies who try to tell them how to run their lives.
I've seen "environmentalists" destroy a portion of the Everglades (because I lived in the Everglades) in their effort to "be environmental". They ripped up an annual nesting site for many birds, including the Wood Stork. They killed many animals, destroyed vegetation all in an effort to help the water flow from the north to the south, despite the fact that the area they built the bridge already had several culverts all along the roadway that dealt with the flow from the north to the south. There was no need for that bridge. But did they want to talk to the people who actually lived in the Everglades?
No.
Because, according to them, all of us living out there didn't know anything about the environment - the very environment we lived in, day in and day out, compared to them with their useless degree that told them their stick was more intelligent than we were.
They didn't even ask the Indians who live out there - because they "knew" better.
The result: absolute destruction because Mr. Bird man didn't "see" any nests.
Location: Pittsburgh (via Chicago, via Pittsburgh)
3,887 posts, read 5,531,823 times
Reputation: 3107
I didn't say all people on the right don't care about the environment. Interesting that many of them vote for policies that loosen regulations on heavy industry in terms of what they can dump in the rivers and streams they use. Great example here in PA. Alas, this forum already reeks of the politics and other controversies forum, so I don't feel any meaningful discussion will occur.
"It is a huge untapped population that may help bridge the divide between Right and Left on environmental political issues."
"this forum already reeks of the politics and other controversies forum"
On one hand you say its a political issue, and then on the other hand you bemoan that it's a political issue. You are the one who brought politics up in the original post.
I'm a hunter, I'm also an "environmentalist", not a climate alarmist, but I do not believe the science is "settled". When I was a kid in the 1970's the "settled" scientists told us we would be in an ice age right now. In the 90's they told us we'd be underwater by now. When the "science" is wrong it's replaced with whatever theory fuels the political objectives of the time.
The political objective of the climate alarmists is to increase taxes and to transfer wealth from rich countries to poor ones. They want to tax carbon, energy, etc while destroying the planet to mine copper, cobalt and lithium in third world countries using child labor so they can mandate that we drive cars with batteries that are charged by burning fossil fuels thousands of miles away. Eventually they will tax us by the mile the energy comes from. This is not a scientific solution, and it's not a logical one.
When the climate alarmists come up with solutions that are based in science and not politics/taxes, then I'll listen. But for now the same people trying to ram their alarmist theories and taxes down my throat are the ones who want to take my guns away and to stop eating animals. So if you sense some resistance from the hunting folks it's not because we don't care about the environment, we do. We just don't want to see it destroyed by people's political agendas.
Hunters and anglers should be a key population.... .
Add in the farmers, and we're already way ahead of you. Ducks Unlimited et al. and the CRP have saved more acres of American natural habitat than all the govt intrusion & Greenpeace efforts combined.
There's a difference between doing something for the environment vs using environmental concerns as a wedge issue in gaining political favor.
Isn't it fair to say most conservatives live in the rural areas and most liberals in the cities? Who do you think really cares & does more about healthy natural habitat?
Here is my take and I know that it is not goose stepping to the OP's thoughts. I think of many of these wealthy hunters and fishermen like Al Gore. He always liked to fly every place to push his environmental concerns. Of course his flying did not help our environment.
But much of the money from the rich elite, that goes into river restoration, is not for the average bear. Most of it is to protect these clearwater streams and acreage for the people that donate or pushed the right political buttons. Of course one could say: look they saved that stream or that piece of forest; but just look who is enjoying it the most? My area is loaded with many private fishing and hunting clubs. In some of those clubs the members are laying out big bucks every ear to sustain these streams and properties. It is just they are doing it for their own good and not everybody can enjoy these 'donations'.
It might just be me? But there was always a resentment about the rich doctors and lawyers from the big cities that controlled so much of our hunting and fishing properties. Our locals could not go; in many cases the clubs had their own security that patrolled those streams and woods. Of course our locals did not have the money to maintain those properties - so it fed resentment.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
