BUXH8ME
New member
Originally Posted By: bluealteredBUXH8ME there isn't any reason to become angry here, after it's just a "healthy discusion", remember those words? I don't mind you calling me names either, however my formal training produced a degree as well. I simply decided that i would rather spend my life outdoors rather than designing things indoors.
As for my getting cancer that happened a little over four years ago, it's stage two-b melanoma and yes i am under going treatment for it, perhaps i have not regressed to being that stupid yet.
Ater looking at your profile i do understand your anger at what i have stated, it was of course stupid of me to think that anyone else but a trained biologist could possibly know anything about nature or the cause and effect of speices rise and decline. I guess having spent the last 40+ years actually observing nature first hand six and seven days a week was just stupid of me as well.
You say that we must get along with nature and that of course humans are part of it, when in fact all the federal agencies i have dealt with for over the last twenty years now have given lip service to placing people as equals to "nature" but have in fact done every single thing they could to remove people from the land. Or perhaps ALL of the public land across his nation was just locked up by accident.
If you care to show me how i am wrong i'm sure myself and other forum members would be happy to see it. After you do so i will be happy to show as well the paperwork from years of sitting different forest service oversite committees that i have sat on. I will need some help from our forum members since i haven't done much/any of this in the past. I do have boxs full meeting(s) paperwork proving my point that government agencies that should have nothing to do with where i, (or others) live control every single thing that can or can't be done across our country as far as forests/grasslands/deserts are concerned.
As a biologist you may have even contributed to some of these reports. I look forward to your response, though i realize it will be no problem for an educated person like you to show a stupid person like me i'm wrong.
Im happy to respond, first by pointing out that I called an ideology stupid, not a person. That being said, it was clearly a bad choice of words and will not make excuses. I apologize.
You have written some compelling things even calling me out on specific topics. I find it ironic that you didn't address most, or any of what I wrote. Im sorry you have cancer, I am. Since you're undergoing treatment you must feel the human trait of "prolonging life" is not only an appropriate trait but also one that is beneficial (even though it's unnatural; doesn't exist in nature).
Maybe I'm wrong but it seems that one of your major points was that we should let "nature" do what it wants. I asked and/or insinuated that nature and/or being natural should be defined. You didn't comment on this other than implying that observing nature for 40 years. I freely admit that I'm no expert in land management but I do know this. I can observe pimples for 40 years; that doesn't give me the same training or experience as a dermatologist.
Yesterday I was hunting turkeys on public land. You went out ofof your water to emphasize that ALL public land was locked up. I guess the feds forgot to lock up ALL the gates. I won't comment further on this subject since it's been hashed over and over why the feds have chosen to close or not close areas. It's obviously up for debate as there are many opinions as to if, how, when, and where people have less access to public land. One thing seems to hold true, I can go to public land and still have access whether gates are closed or not. So do you. I have never contributed to any of the reports you eluded to and it sounds like you have been quite involved with oversight committees and the like and I would even agree with your statement about the federal gov't having to much decision making power. I guess my question is this? Who should have the ultimate power of decision making? You? Me? The state? The tribes? The plumber at the local video store? The guy above who says that certain species are worthless so let them die? I'm by no means a big gov't believer but I'm also not a radical who believes that the Fed's are out get us. Not all government decisions and policies are are evil. Far from perfect, but a diabolical plan to hurt Joe Public they are not. You may have boxes of reports that YOU believe are a plot against society but I may look athletes same reports and have a completely different interpretation.
I too have spent years observing wildlife but I don't pretend that I know everything about the rise and fall of every species based on my own observations. Good experience, yes. All encompassing knowledge, no. Again, I shouldn't have used the word stupid in my narrative. Not only because it wasn't fair to you but it also allowed you to use it as a red herring; drawing attention away from several points I made. You seem quick to call me out saying I need to prove this or that yet I'm still wondering how someone with 40 years experience observing nature actually defines nature and what the role of humans are in nature? All I've gotten out of it is that nature should run it's course and that humans are the only species that wants to prolong life. You personally benefit (and everyone else) from this trait but imply that the trait is not natural. Which is it?
Im writing from a cell phone and cannot scroll back to your last post so I can't remember if I've addressed all the points you called me out on. If not, let me know. I definitely won't be asking for other forum members to get behind me. If they want to, great. If not, that's okay. I'm not afraid to stand by my position without calling in the cavalry.
As for my getting cancer that happened a little over four years ago, it's stage two-b melanoma and yes i am under going treatment for it, perhaps i have not regressed to being that stupid yet.
Ater looking at your profile i do understand your anger at what i have stated, it was of course stupid of me to think that anyone else but a trained biologist could possibly know anything about nature or the cause and effect of speices rise and decline. I guess having spent the last 40+ years actually observing nature first hand six and seven days a week was just stupid of me as well.
You say that we must get along with nature and that of course humans are part of it, when in fact all the federal agencies i have dealt with for over the last twenty years now have given lip service to placing people as equals to "nature" but have in fact done every single thing they could to remove people from the land. Or perhaps ALL of the public land across his nation was just locked up by accident.
If you care to show me how i am wrong i'm sure myself and other forum members would be happy to see it. After you do so i will be happy to show as well the paperwork from years of sitting different forest service oversite committees that i have sat on. I will need some help from our forum members since i haven't done much/any of this in the past. I do have boxs full meeting(s) paperwork proving my point that government agencies that should have nothing to do with where i, (or others) live control every single thing that can or can't be done across our country as far as forests/grasslands/deserts are concerned.
As a biologist you may have even contributed to some of these reports. I look forward to your response, though i realize it will be no problem for an educated person like you to show a stupid person like me i'm wrong.
Im happy to respond, first by pointing out that I called an ideology stupid, not a person. That being said, it was clearly a bad choice of words and will not make excuses. I apologize.
You have written some compelling things even calling me out on specific topics. I find it ironic that you didn't address most, or any of what I wrote. Im sorry you have cancer, I am. Since you're undergoing treatment you must feel the human trait of "prolonging life" is not only an appropriate trait but also one that is beneficial (even though it's unnatural; doesn't exist in nature).
Maybe I'm wrong but it seems that one of your major points was that we should let "nature" do what it wants. I asked and/or insinuated that nature and/or being natural should be defined. You didn't comment on this other than implying that observing nature for 40 years. I freely admit that I'm no expert in land management but I do know this. I can observe pimples for 40 years; that doesn't give me the same training or experience as a dermatologist.
Yesterday I was hunting turkeys on public land. You went out ofof your water to emphasize that ALL public land was locked up. I guess the feds forgot to lock up ALL the gates. I won't comment further on this subject since it's been hashed over and over why the feds have chosen to close or not close areas. It's obviously up for debate as there are many opinions as to if, how, when, and where people have less access to public land. One thing seems to hold true, I can go to public land and still have access whether gates are closed or not. So do you. I have never contributed to any of the reports you eluded to and it sounds like you have been quite involved with oversight committees and the like and I would even agree with your statement about the federal gov't having to much decision making power. I guess my question is this? Who should have the ultimate power of decision making? You? Me? The state? The tribes? The plumber at the local video store? The guy above who says that certain species are worthless so let them die? I'm by no means a big gov't believer but I'm also not a radical who believes that the Fed's are out get us. Not all government decisions and policies are are evil. Far from perfect, but a diabolical plan to hurt Joe Public they are not. You may have boxes of reports that YOU believe are a plot against society but I may look athletes same reports and have a completely different interpretation.
I too have spent years observing wildlife but I don't pretend that I know everything about the rise and fall of every species based on my own observations. Good experience, yes. All encompassing knowledge, no. Again, I shouldn't have used the word stupid in my narrative. Not only because it wasn't fair to you but it also allowed you to use it as a red herring; drawing attention away from several points I made. You seem quick to call me out saying I need to prove this or that yet I'm still wondering how someone with 40 years experience observing nature actually defines nature and what the role of humans are in nature? All I've gotten out of it is that nature should run it's course and that humans are the only species that wants to prolong life. You personally benefit (and everyone else) from this trait but imply that the trait is not natural. Which is it?
Im writing from a cell phone and cannot scroll back to your last post so I can't remember if I've addressed all the points you called me out on. If not, let me know. I definitely won't be asking for other forum members to get behind me. If they want to, great. If not, that's okay. I'm not afraid to stand by my position without calling in the cavalry.