[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: NFC: Re: political thread
PGagne2000 at aol_com wrote:
>
> I am concerned about the recent thread of posts concerning political
> _and_ non-conservation issues.
A most valid concern and request, Pierre.
The whole concept of "conservation" was radically redefined in the early
20th century to mean *only* government intervention and control. Probably a
majority of the public believe that the (rest of the) public cannot ever be
trusted and only the government goons in brown shirts will save the earth
from our stupidity and greed. [I think the song once went: "When will they
ever learn...?"]
As long as we are a "Conservancy" with members seriously interested in
conserving the fish, and not basically in people control, that ill-informed
public will always cause us to be deluged with political garbage, whether we
like it or not. We ignore this process at our own (and the fishes') peril,
IMHO.
I like Chris' suggestion that we not be subjected to it here, and that the
topic be given a list of its own. We once fractionated into too many lists,
so I'm a bit reluctant to suggest we add another. OTOH, it *is* a topic that
is uncomfortable for many and that they have every right to be able to avoid
while pursuing a peaceful hobby that need not rise to the level of fervent
crusade.
It would be the place to post hearing notices, river reports, etc., that are
primarily governmental (hence political by definition). Discussion of such
could then be confined to that list. Whatcha think?
My US$0.02 for today. :-)
Wright
--
Wright Huntley, Fremont CA, USA, 510 494-8679 huntleyone at home dot com
Does that ring a bell, Dr. Pavlov?
*** http://www.libertarian.org/ ***
Follow-Ups:
References: