[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: NFC: Re: political thread


Your proposal has merit.  It would also be very telling about the
proportions of "hobbyists" and "activists" in the club.  It will tell the
officers whether our members want this to be an aquarist club or a political
force in wildlife conservation.  There are places for both kinds of
organizations.  But I think that the true identity of this club must be
brought out in the open so that if we are not interested in pursuing
conservation through legislation, some other organization can grow to pick
up the slack that we're inevitably going to leave.

I love my tanks.  I love that I can go down to the Eno River and net a few
fishes out every summer to enjoy in my tanks.  I don't like that some of our
more desirable fish are seriously threatened, and that my grandchildren may
never see them except in a pickle jar at the museum.  I joined the NFC
partially to learn more about native fishes, how to catch them, how to keep
them, and meet the other people into the same things as me.  But I also got
into the NFC because I thought there was a genuine desire to make a
difference in how the government handles environmental issues.

I'm not knocking the folks who just want a peaceful aquarium club.  I am,
though, surprised that as a "Conservancy" there is such vocal opposition to
discussing the steps necessary to conserving.  Removing exotics from our
waterways is one small way to make a difference.  Like it or not, it is our
legislators who REALLY set the tone for environmental issues and it is
through those channels that we must affect lasting change.  If that means
closing off lands, so be it.  If it means getting the government out of the
business of environmental protection and entrusting third party
organizations or even companies, so be it.  But what I'm seeing here is a
lot of people who just want to leave the tough issues alone and go back to
talking about the latest catch.  Enjoy it while it lasts.

Chris Hedemark - Hillsborough, NC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wright Huntley" <huntley1 at home_com>
To: <nfc at actwin_com>
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 8:09 PM
Subject: 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
> majority of the public believe that the (rest of the) public cannot ever
> 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
> public will always cause us to be deluged with political garbage, whether
> like it or not. We ignore this process at our own (and the fishes') peril,
> 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
> so I'm a bit reluctant to suggest we add another. OTOH, it *is* a topic
> is uncomfortable for many and that they have every right to be able to
> 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
> 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/ ***