Jump to content
Jim J

This is not a political discussion

Recommended Posts

Mark, we are incorporated as a 501©7, social club. That is different from a not-for-profit 501©3. There are a lot of extra rules that not for profits have to abide by that would have changed a lot of what we would have been allowed to do. Plus, there was never any of our officers who were willing to put in all the extra time required.

As far as political discussions here on the forums, you are right, we keep them off to avoid bickering. As long as no one is bashing either Republicans or Democrats, as a moderator, I'm going to allow most other discussions. We used to have more moderators but the others have retired and we haven't had the need to replace them yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark, we are incorporated as a 501©7, social club. That is different from a not-for-profit 501©3. There are a lot of extra rules that not for profits have to abide by that would have changed a lot of what we would have been allowed to do. Plus, there was never any of our officers who were willing to put in all the extra time required.

As far as political discussions here on the forums, you are right, we keep them off to avoid bickering. As long as no one is bashing either Republicans or Democrats, as a moderator, I'm going to allow most other discussions. We used to have more moderators but the others have retired and we haven't had the need to replace them yet.

 

TU is 501 C3, not sure why i thought ISA was.

That makes sense. Nothing good is going to come out of political debates on a fishing site and I totally get what you are saying.

 

"bashing" is defined as "severe criticism". In the next few years as these issues come up and articles like the the TU one on the Clean Water Rule, a "certain person's" name is likely to be attached to it in some way. I don't really see that as constituting "bashing". Do you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can't pretend like the current administration is trying to protect the environment. As long as all the discussions are kept civil, like this thread has been, I don't think there will be any problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the current Administration views the environment as just another commodity to monetize and wants to reverse 50 years of environmental progress by turning the EPA in to a shill for the oil and coal industries perhaps what we need here is more "political" discussion. We could call it "pro-environment" or "earth-friendly" as to not offend anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the current Administration views the environment as just another commodity to monetize and wants to reverse 50 years of environmental progress by turning the EPA in to a shill for the oil and coal industries perhaps what we need here is more "political" discussion. We could call it "pro-environment" or "earth-friendly" as to not offend anyone.

 

The tricky part is in political discussion is not preaching to the choir with people who agree with you and not bickering with people who don't. Real discussion. Don't happen much these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The tricky part is in political discussion is not preaching to the choir with people who agree with you and not bickering with people who don't. Real discussion. Don't happen much these days.

I'll drink to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The tricky part is in political discussion is not preaching to the choir with people who agree with you and not bickering with people who don't. Real discussion. Don't happen much these days.

That's like arguing over the best color tube or what type of line is best . In all my years on line I don't think i have seen any one's mind changed in those let alone political or religious discussions , It's pointless in the long run .

 

I am on the side of those who disagree with the changes being wrought in the environmental protections . I just don't see how putting someone down who disagrees accomplishes anything positive .

 

If want want to do something positive take the time to actually write a real letter and mail it to your lawmakers . I have found over the decades that doing so makes more of an impression on them , especially these days when so many send e-mails . Many times I have got a letter back , sometimes it's the same thank you for your interest you get in e-mail blow offs . There have been enough where they actually explain their position that leads me to believe that they take actual letters more seriously .

 

I remember when Mike at one of his websites offered a prize for anyone who sent a copy of a letter concerning environmental concerns to a lawmaker . As I remember it, he never gave away a single prize . I was excluded from the contest as he already knew that I did so . Not that it bothered me now or then, what bothered me was no one got a prize, sure that bothered him just as much if not more .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My tactics were to meet with a legislator right on the river.

Like the senator who wanted to ban lead in fishing.

We had pie and coffee overlooking the Kankakee. Took me about 20 minutes to change her mind with thoughtful, reasonable and professional discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That also works Mike . I have also found it beneficial over the years to establish a good relationship with legislative assistants . Many times they are the ones deciding who gets access to the legislator . Well, unless you have big time political clout .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I came to the meeting with information regarding the effects of lead on wildlife, and the fact that it is mainly loons...that have a flyway in a very remote northwest portion of IL.

I proposed that the ISA and IDNR team up to educate first, rather than penalize for something not based on science as it applies here. We did just that. Remember all the lead alternatives I acquired and gave them away at the Blowout on a conservation table dedicated to such.

 

"I recently met with Mike Clifford and Don Rego from the Illinois

Smallmouth Alliance (ISA). Mike Clifford is the Conservation Director

of and on the Executive Board of ISA. Mr. Clifford and I discussed

the interests of fishing groups and the intent of the legislation.

After meeting with Mr. Clifford, I have decided to pursue a statewide

education program regarding lead weights as an alternative to the full

ban. I look forward to working with the stakeholders involved and

incorporating your interests in order to create a meaningful education

program.

 

Below, please find the statements from Mike Clifford at the Illinois

Smallmouth Alliance.

 

Sincerely,

 

Heather A. Steans

State Senator

7th District"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was one of your many great accomplishments as Conservation Director .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She submitted the bill on a Monday, on Tuesday she called me to apologize that she had forgotten that somebody in government strongly suggested she speak with myself and the ISA before doing so. We had never spoken previously. I arranged the meeting for that afternoon.

On Wednesday morning, she pulled the bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll drink to that.

 

Since the current Administration views the environment as just another commodity to monetize and wants to reverse 50 years of environmental progress by turning the EPA in to a shill for the oil and coal industries perhaps what we need here is more "political" discussion. We could call it "pro-environment" or "earth-friendly" as to not offend anyone.

In the grand scheme of things Gordon, you are correct and unfortunately I think they have won this battle. It's already pretty much game over, maybe for a generation or two,. Money pretty much controls everything. Did you ever read "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayne Rand? she talks about the the dollar sign " $" being basically the letters "U.S" laid on top of each other. When I read it I thought it was whacky, but the older I get, when it comes to pretty much any issue in politics all you have to do is "follow the money".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'll drink to that.

 

Since the current Administration views the environment as just another commodity to monetize and wants to reverse 50 years of environmental progress by turning the EPA in to a shill for the oil and coal industries perhaps what we need here is more "political" discussion. We could call it "pro-environment" or "earth-friendly" as to not offend anyone.

In the grand scheme of things Gordon, you are correct and unfortunately I think they have won this battle. It's already pretty much game over, maybe for a generation or two,. Money pretty much controls everything. Did you ever read "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayne Rand? she talks about the the dollar sign " $" being basically the letters "U.S" laid on top of each other. When I read it I thought it was whacky, but the older I get, when it comes to pretty much any issue in politics all you have to do is "follow the money".

 

I have not read "Atlas Shrugged" but another scenario that seems possible is "The Handmaids Tale" by Margaret Atwood. That's a good, if frightening, read. Fiction, for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×