Calling all hunters and anglers!

[Redneck Socialist]

I propose an Outdoor Life Group for all of us hunters, anglers, hikers, skiers and outdoor fanatics of all stripes.

He is what I was thinking for a mission statement:

The purpose of the Outdoor Sports Group is to discuss and share all aspects of hunting, fishing, hiking, rock climbing, mountain biking, skiing and other outdoor sports.

We understand that hunting provokes a strong emotional response in many people. To those non-hunters honestly interested in why we hunt, we welcome your questions. To those that dislike hunting, please no flaming.

As always, personal attacks and flame wars will not be tolerated.

Thank you for your understanding a support.

I already ran it by Skinner and he said it was a go as long a I could round up 10 other paying members to join in.

Whadaya think?

[napi21]

1. I'm not a paying member so I guess I don't have a voice in this.

I think it might be a good idea, because there are a lot of people in the groups you mentioned.

I believe in hinting, fishing, and the option to hike and rock climb if that's what you really want to do.

We could hae a potential impact on the totally negative ads from the NRA. I shocked them, I guess, when they called here before the election, and I told them, although I had a lifetime membership in the NRA, I totally disagree with their current lies and scare tactics, and didn't want to hear their political BS!

We really do need to counter these alarmists!

[slackmaster]

2. I've never hunted but do angle on occasion

Please count me in.

:toast:

This would solve the problem of people complaining about gun porn and hunting trophy pictures in the Gungeon.

[goju]

3. Im in

although, i could do without the climbing, hiking, and other such affairs. Hunting and fishing works for me.

[Redneck Socialist]

9. Trying to be inclusive

I hike and I hunt and I wanted the Group to be big enough to accommodate a range of outdoor interests.

[Township75]

4. This paying member is in...

do I need to tell him, or just you?

I hunt, fish, mtn bike, hike, climb, trail run, ski and a bunch of other outdoor stuff too.

[one_true_leroy]

5. sign me up!

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

6. Sure.

Love to fish. The town I live in is on the Delaware. Some of the best fishing in the country.

[CarinKaryn]

7. Great idea!

Totally inappropriate use of skinner's bandwidth, completely unrelated to DU's goal of acting as a POLITICAL forum but at least it will get all the braggerts comparing the size of their pistols into the same area.

How about a special forum on DU for needlepointers? Or people who raise vegatable gardens? OH, OH, I want someone to give me bandwidth to talk about comic books!
:party: :party: :party:

[Redneck Socialist]

8. All those options are available now

or if they are not you could propose a group.

[puttothesword]

11. lemme guess....

gun-control fan, right?

[iverglas]

12. count me among the number (edited)

Hobbies don't belong in political discussion forums, and I've long said precisely this about hunting (let alone fishing) and the former J/PS and present GR/GC forum.

There's a cooking group; let there be a hunting/fishing group. Please.

One to kill it, one to serve it up ...


(edit: oops, intended to reply to opening post)

But on second thought and closer reading, I don't really think that skiing and showshoing and hiking should be lumped in with hunting and fishing in an "outdoor sports/activities" group. Really, they really just are not analogous, and people who have interests in either sort of activity -- hunting/fishing or skiing/hiking -- neither necessarily have an interest in the other nor necessarily want to be reading about it or associated with it.)

[goju]

14. Look at the Lounge?

Do those topics belong here?

I can understand not wanting to dilute the integrity of the forum, but that doesnt mean we cant have a little side chat now and then.

[iverglas]

15. uh, say what?

"Look at the Lounge"? Why? Are you suggesting that the Lounge is a " political discussion forum" -- i.e. what I was talking about?

Before there were interest groups, I did indeed advocate that discussions of hunting and fishing be conducted in the Lounge. The Lounge evidently did not want them.

Some sort of majority-rule thing, I guess. J/PS was small and unimportant, the Lounge was big and important, so J/PS got stuck with what the Lounge didn't want. Even though there was no conceivable reason for it.

that doesnt mean we cant have a little side chat now and then.

Yes, and at the moment, here's what the GR/GC thread listing looks like -- with the "side chat" threads highlighted for your convenience:

City's gun suits tossed out
Calling all hunters and anglers!
National gun control is dead. And good riddance.
Finally, time off for hunting...
Deer hunt update.
Hunting (real) from the comfort of your home in
the city...
(okay, that one does legitimately fall under the "public policy" rubric)
"Gun control a loser in election Assault weapons ban renewal unlikely ...
Why are You Anti-Gun?
Do you own a gun? - Post a picture of it ...
Who else is going or has gone deer hunting this year?
The future of gun control policy?
Given the opportunity to carry what you felt necessary to protect yourself
NRA only supports republicans... or does it?
Did the "gun" vote have any effect?
My thoughts on guns
WP: (VA) Gun Group Puts Policy Goals in Public View
Searching for weapons going too far in PA?
Workplace rampage thwarted.
Anyone game to form a new national progressive gun organization? (that's "hobby")
Democrats: Give up on gun control
A Democratic Pro-Gun Suggestion for 2008
"'No Guns' Signs Come Down in Ohio"
Democrats! *Become* gun owners!!! (not public policy, sorry)
I was a real asshole in that other thread.

... okay, we'll leave it with that last one, which doesn't seem to be either hobby-related or public-policy related.

I had a little side chat here just yesterday, about the practice of program evaluation. Given the problems with empirical evidence that are encountered in discussion firearms policy, that one was even arguably relevant. Oddly, I'm not about to start a thread in GR/GS to discuss program evaluation standards ...

[Wickerman]

28. Hey I would LOVE to have a program evaluation forum

I'd get to spin endlessly as there can't be a bunch of us.

[iverglas]

34. sign me up!

I actually like learning more stuff about stuff I know a little bit about. And I'd have lots of good questions, believe me. You could help me with my own work, for free.

Meanwhile -- can we get the threads that were boldfaced in my other post locked in GR/GS now that the new group is operational? Or maybe just have the relevant ones of those transferred holus bolus to the new group's page, so the discussants can merrily continue their discussions?

[Redneck Socialist]

17. I participate in several of those activities

I suppose we could have several small groups for specific interests but I would hope that that would be unnecessary. I would like think that people could talk about cross country skiing and fishing or simply ignore one or the other if they so choose. I guess we'll see what happens if the Group get final approval. :shrug:

edited for clarity

[iverglas]

21. so do vegans

I just don't think they'd particularly want to be in a group dedicated in any part to the joys of hunting and fishing.

Hunting/fishing and skiing/hiking may all take place outdoors ... but so do gardening and barbecuing and, hell, knitting and babysitting and sex.

A group that has to advise its own members -- those interested in "hiking, rock climbing, mountain biking, skiing and other outdoor sports" but not interested in, or opposed on principle to, hunting and/or fishing:

We understand that hunting provokes a strong emotional response in many people. To those non-hunters honestly interested in why we hunt, we welcome your questions. To those that dislike hunting, please no flaming.

strikes me as a bit of a hostile environment for the non-hunters who are expected to accept this group as the place to chat about their interests and activities.

[Redneck Socialist]

24. Not surprisingly

I see things differently.

Far from being a hostile environment, it is meant to be a plea for civility. My hope is that people who are opposed to hunting won't turn this group into a flame fest. I would like to think that someone who likes to ski can drop in and chat about skiing all the while ignoring the hunting threads. For those that want to debate hunting as a public policy there is alway General Discussion.

The Admins opened up the group this morning so we will see how it goes. :)

[iverglas]

25. odd

Far from being a hostile environment, it is meant to be a plea for civility.

Yeah, just a pre-emptive reminder to all those obnoxious incivil anti-hunters that their views aren't welcome. That isn't hostile at all, nope. (And gosh, does "astrology" come to mind at all?)

As I've said, I'd be very happy for there to be a little chat room for hunters and fishers and firearms enthusiasts, purely because it would get the chat in question out of a forum intended for the discussion of public policy (and where I have absolutely no doubt that it is posted, at least by some, quite simply as provocation).

And since I really have no interest in talking on line about skiing and snowshoeing, and I have no particular opinions about hunting or fishing per se, I have no dogsled in this race.

I just think that people who want to talk about their doing of things that some people, who are legitimate members of a community, do have strong negative opinions about (and emotional responses to), regardless of anyone's opinion about the merits of those opinions, oughta make arrangements to do it among themselves without requiring those who are interested in something else, and not in hunting & fishing, and who may not want to have to look at hunting/fishing boasts (let alone "wanna see a picture of my big gun" boasts), share space with them.

The astrologers didn't demand that telescope enthusiasts share their space, after all.

[Redneck Socialist]

27. Astrology?

I don't follow the astrology references.

In any event it is clear that we don't agree on this. As I've said a couple of times I hope everyone can get along. We will see how it goes, the Group just opened up and if it turns out that we need to slice the group more finely I don't see why we couldn't do that. I wouldn't be opposed and I would imagine that the admins would be amenable to doing so if necessary.

[Columbia]

29. Skinner is pretty clear on this matter

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=120x25102

Post that go against the mission statement are not permitted. The people who post such posts will be barred from posting in a particular group.

...

Those individuals who demonstrate that they do not share the overall mission of the group are barred from posting. This is the rule for Dean supporters who want to post in the Wes Clark forum as well. So, if you are a Dean supporter and it becomes apparent that your purpose for posting in the Wes Clark forum is to undermine Wes Clark and help Dean, then you will be barred from posting in the Wes Clark forum.

...

If you want to discuss psychology and birth control you are welcome to start a thread in the Science forum or the Reproductive Rights forum... Wouldn't it be more rewarding for you to try to have discussions with people whom you like and respect?...

Let people have their groups. Their problems and discussions are no longer your concern. Learn to live with it.

[iverglas]

30. fuckin duh

How can you possibly have missed that THIS IS MY POINT?

Those individuals who demonstrate that they do not share the overall mission of the group are barred from posting.

What the fuck is the OVERALL MISSION of a group that is dedicated to skiing & snowshoeing & hiking *AND* hunting & fishing & firearms use??

There is a "Cooking & Baking" group AND a "Vegetarian, Vegan and Animal Rights Group". Vegetarians who don't want to read about pot roast can go to the second.

So a hiker who doesn't want to read about killing animals (or acquiring firearms) should have to go to a forum where not only is that one of the main topics, but s/he is prohibited from expressing an opinion about it??

Such a person DOES share the "overall mission" of a group dedicated to OUTDOOR SPORTS, but NOT of one dedicated to the practice of killing animals (or acquiring firearms). And should NOT be regarded as unwelcome in the only forum allegedly dedicated to the former based on his/her views on the latter (unless s/he is willing to simply shut up).

How much less complex could this be?

[Columbia]

31. Easy

If you don't like it, then don't post in it, or make your own group instead of attempting to force your opinions on others who do like it the way it is.

[iverglas]

32. ooooooo

... instead of attempting to force your opinions on others who do like it the way it is.

Compare and contrast:

We understand that hunting provokes a strong emotional response in many people. To those non-hunters honestly interested in why we hunt, we welcome your questions. To those that dislike hunting, please no flaming.

Why do I suspect that if someone who is quite fond of snowshoeing but "dislikes" hunting states the opinion that hunting is barbaric, this will be interpreted as "flaming" and disallowed in the forum?

Gosh, that wouldn't be forcing anybody's opinions on anybody else. Nooooo.

Now, me stating my opinion about that state of affairs, THAT is forcing opinions on somebody else. Oh, yeah. Sing it.

[Columbia]

33. Nope

Nobody is forcing anti-hunters to post in that forum. Just as no one is forcing you to post on this one. Just as no one is forcing Bush-lovers to post on DU.

What is wrong with a group of like-minded individuals having their own space to discuss their shared interests?

And yes, advocacy for changing policy of another group IS attempting to force your opinion on them.

[iverglas]

35. keep trying

What is wrong with a group of like-minded individuals having their own space to discuss their shared interests?

What is wrong with you acknowledging that a vegetarian mountain climber and a deer-hunting firearms afficionado are NOT "like-minded individuals"?

What need to deny the legitimacy of other people's opinions drives such insistence that they must not challenge one's own?

And yes, advocacy for changing policy of another group IS attempting to force your opinion on them.

No, you great baby.

It's SPEECH, and the exercise of the FREEDOM thereof.

Deal.

[Columbia]

36. Yeah, I'm stubborn like that

"What is wrong with you acknowledging that a vegetarian mountain climber and a deer-hunting firearms afficionado are NOT "like-minded individuals"?

Who said they were? If they want to start a vegetarian, mountain climbing group and can find 10 other like-minded individuals, they can do so.

10 people came together and wanted a group that encompassed a variety of outdoor activities such as the ones listed. Why can't you leave them alone?

"What need to deny the legitimacy of other people's opinions drives such insistence that they must not challenge one's own?"

So, I assume you would be ok with allowing a bunch of Bush idols come on DU and challenge our beliefs?

"No, you great baby."

Oh, and that is supposed to be mature discourse?

"It's SPEECH, and the exercise of the FREEDOM thereof."

Yes, speech advocating the changing of another groups policy with your own.

[iverglas]

37. oh dear oh dear

Yes, speech advocating the changing of another groups policy with your own.

Uh ... so? You're really saying that you have a problem with this?

Remind me never to speak negatively of the US's policy of invading and occupying Iraq, eh?

Somebody might think that I was advocating the changing of another group's policy with my own (and even be able to figure out what the hell that meant).

Dog forbid that actual reasoned discourse be engaged about the merits of a policy. Certainly not in the gun rights forum, anyhow.

Nope, it's our'n, and don't you be speakin no ill of it, no matter how unfair to anybody else it is. Have I got that right?

Be sure to send me a reminder to stay home when Bush comes to visit up here later in the month, okay?


You may not have noticed, but

advocacy for changing policy of another group IS attempting to force your opinion on them. (what you said)

just isn't quite the same as

advocating the changing of another groups policy with your own (what you say now)

so I guess we're ad idem after all. You've decided not to accuse me of doing something I have not done. (How the hell does any simple poster at DU "force" his/her "opinion" on anyone else there, and what kind of bozo would waste time attempting to do it?)

I'm advocating that a policy that, in my esteemed opinion, is unfair and inappropriate, be changed.

You're telling me to shut up.

Got it.

[Columbia]

38. Again

"I'm advocating that a policy that, in my esteemed opinion, is unfair and inappropriate, be changed."

Freepers think it is unfair they can't campaign for Bush here as well. What's your point?

"You're telling me to shut up."

Ok, so you telling others how to run their group is "free speech," yet my expression that they should be left alone is telling you to "shut up."

Got it. :eyes:

[iverglas]

39. feel free!

Ok, so you telling others how to run their group is "free speech," yet my expression that they should be left alone is telling you to "shut up."

Tell me to shut up all you like! Far be it from me to try to stop you!

Oh ... did you notice how I wasn't trying to stop you?? Or that I wasn't TELLING anyone how to run their group? Like I did say, only a bozo would waste time trying to do something that it is not within his/her power to do.

You're the one creating the false dichotomy here.

I said:

I'm advocating that a policy that, in my esteemed opinion, is unfair and inappropriate, be changed.

You're telling me to shut up.

I'm offering ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF the opinion I am stating, and the action I am advocating.

You're just telling me I shouldn't be doing that.

They're both exercises of free speech. Some exercises of free speech are just more worthwhile than others, though, you see.

Responding to an argument by telling the person making the argument not to make it isn't one of the more excellent examples.

I'm advocating that a policy that, in my esteemed opinion, is unfair and inappropriate, be changed.
Freepers think it is unfair they can't campaign for Bush here as well. What's your point?

Maybe you could start by telling us what yours was.

Hmmmmm. Could you be saying that disagreeing with a policy prohibiting criticism of hunting & fishing & acquiring firearms in a discussion group dedicated to OTHER ACTIVITIES = being a freeper?

There are some here who would undoubtedly portray you as saying exactly that ... but of course moi never would. Moi just doesn't get your point.

Watch those eyes, they might just get stuck like that.

[Columbia]

40. If only

"I'm offering ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF the opinion I am stating, and the action I am advocating.

You're just telling me I shouldn't be doing that.

They're both exercises of free speech. Some exercises of free speech are just more worthwhile than others, though, you see.

Responding to an argument by telling the person making the argument not to make it isn't one of the more excellent examples."

Of course, I still have never said you shouldn't make the argument at all. I'm just saying you are wrong.

"I'm advocating that a policy that, in my esteemed opinion, is unfair and inappropriate, be changed.
Freepers think it is unfair they can't campaign for Bush here as well. What's your point?

Maybe you could start by telling us what yours was."

Sometimes people just want to be left alone to discuss their shared interests without people purposefully disrupting them. Just as DU is a safe haven, the OLG is a safe haven for those who wish to discuss the outdoors without people flaming them for their beliefs.

[iverglas]

41. oh yeah

Of course, I still have never said you shouldn't make the argument at all. I'm just saying you are wrong.

Oh yeah? That's an excellent argument. "You're wrong". But actually ...

If you don't like it, then don't post in it, or make your own group instead of attempting to force your opinions on others who do like it the way it is.

That doesn't look to me much *not* like saying I shouldn't make the argument. It seems to me that "and shut the fuck up" is the generally acknowledged unstated follow-up to "if you don't like it, don't post in it".

Why would anyone bother saying things like "if you don't like it, don't post in it"? I've never been particularly impressed by "if you don't like abortion, don't have one" -- but at least it makes some sense when talking to people who are trying to have abortions PROHIBITED.

I'm not in the least interested in having your little hunting & fishing & firearms circle prohibited. I'm trying to figure out why people who want to talk about hunting & fishing & firearms and require people who want to talk about skiing and showshoeing and hiking to do it in the same place and make no adverse comment about hunting & fishing & firearms ... well, why they want to do that. Why do THEY want to tell other people wht to do??

Sometimes people just want to be left alone to discuss their shared interests without people purposefully disrupting them.

Then why not request and organize a group FOR THAT PURPOSE? Why organize a group that INCLUDES OTHER PURPOSES, and demand that other, completely unrelated, and in fact arguably inconsistent purposes, be subsumed under that group??

How about if someone who is genuinely concerned about ecology and conservation, and enjoys outdoor pursuits, objects to certain hunting practices on just such an arguable and relevant ground -- relevant in a group dedicated to outdoor pursuits and all that -- and not at all because killing animals is immoral or unpleasant? What happens then? They get characterized as flamers?

Just as DU is a safe haven, the OLG is a safe haven for those who wish to discuss the outdoors without people flaming them for their beliefs.

"Beliefs"? Aren't we getting a little big for our britches here? Hunting is no more a "belief" than ... buying a firearm. Or going to the movies. Or growing tomatoes. Or baking a cake. It's a pastime, and possibly a way of acquiring food.

I, personally, don't give a shit about anyone's beliefs, and actually do not take kindly to any disparaging of anyone's beliefs about anything in a discussion of public policy. And I have not infrequently said so, for instance in relation to religious belief.

It is people's ACTS that are valid subjects of public discussion, and hunting, you might just have noticed, is an ACT.

Lordy. Shall I propose a group dedicated to the joys of spanking children, and screech that my beliefs are not being respected if someone dares to come in and say nay? Most people at DU undoubtedly do not believe that spanking should be prohibited, but some do, and some probably even feel strongly that spanking is a good thing. Shall I just say If you don't like it, then don't post in it, or make your own group instead of attempting to force your opinions on others who do like it the way it is ?

I suppose it needs to be said again: *I* have no particular objection to hunting per se. The issues involved are far too nuanced for me, personally, to have any kind of blanket stance. But I won't characterize anyone else's position on it as a priori inferior to yours, and that's what the position statement's characterization of their position looks like to me.

And THAT is what I consider to be inappropriate.

And you really can like it or lump it, you know?

Just as I can like it or lump it if the thing stays as it is. I simply do not have to like it, or shut up if I don't.

[Columbia]

42. Tell it to the boss

[iverglas]

43. I did

As I'm sure you're aware.

And hey, that's a great response to argument too. Almost as good as "if you don't like it, don't post there".

How about: if YOU don't want to discuss something, don't bother clicking that "reply" thingy?

[Columbia]

44. Good for you

[alwynsw]

48. Damn, son! There's a hole in your bucket.

You keep trying to bail out the scuppers and the water keep pouring in.

Ever get the idea that, as we country folk put it, you're talking to a fence post?

[Columbia]

49. Twas a moment of weakness

As an old professor of mine used to say, "Those who talk the most, often have the least to say."

Ironically, he was quite the talker himself...

[alwynsw]

47. Careful there. I absolutely LOVE bush.

Oops. Wrong subject. Never mind.

[alwynsw]

46. Just hide the damn threads that offend. It's that simple.

Put those whose activities you find offensive on ignore.

How much simpler can it be?

[slackmaster]

13. How about the "Non-Political Forums" Forum?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=205

I assume you have a problem with that as well.

How nice of you to help Skinner to decide what is and is not an appropriate use of his bandwidth.

:dunce:

[CarinKaryn]

18. My mistake. Apologies to all.

I've been lurking here for years but am so focused on the politics that I didn't even know the non-politicial forums existed.
They do, and it's totally appropriate to have any special groups for whatever the boss thinks is appropriate to discuss.
I got a little side tracked by all the postings of dead animals and rifle pictures, which do NOT belong in the political issues forum.

By all means, lobby to start a hunting forum. I'll support you 100%.

Appologies again for coming off like an ignorant jerk.

[alwynsw]

20. By all means, lobby to start a hunting forum. I'll support you 100%.

Thanks for your support!

Just a thought. I can't speak for the others on this or any other board, so I'll give you my reasons for posting such things as gun photos and hunting photos as well as the threads that go with them. As I see it, firearms ownership is a fundamental right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. Making the above-mentioned posts as well as those related to range outings and other legal uses for firearms shows that those of us on DU who own firearms use them for legitimate purposes.

What better use of a political forum than to display the proper exercise of our rights or those activities allowed because we have those rights? Every time anyone speaks out for or against an injustice on this board, he/she is using and (often) displaying the proper use of 1A rights. I couod go on, but you get the point.

[iverglas]

26. oh really

As I see it, firearms ownership is a fundamental right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.

Yeah, and pooping is ...

Or perhaps engaging in the sexual activity of one's choice (which, heck, might just involve pooping, who knows?) with the partner(s) of one's choice is one of those fundamental rights thingies too. Odd how nobody seems to think that posting videos of their latest fun-with-genitalia exploits is appropriate in, what, the civil rights forum?

Making the above-mentioned posts as well as those related to range outings and other legal uses for firearms shows that those of us on DU who own firearms use them for legitimate purposes.

I wonder why all the atypical sexual practice afficionados at DU don't feel it necessary to post big colour pix, or big buffoonish boasts, to persuade others of the legitimacy of their hobbies.

What better use of a political forum than to display the proper exercise of our rights or those activities allowed because we have those rights?

What abject nonsense.

Every time anyone speaks out for or against an injustice on this board, he/she is using and (often) displaying the proper use of 1A rights. I couod go on, but you get the point.

I did go on, and I'll bet you already had the point.

[alwynsw]

45. My opinion of your drivel:

Now call me juvenile in 1,000 words or more.

[TX-RAT]

10. I'm in

[puttothesword]

16. If I had the money...

I'd so be in.

That said, I normally would agree that all the hunting talk is a side thing, but hey... it's deer season! Can you blame us?

[alwynsw]

19. Count me in!

[arkie dem]

22. Count me in also!

[northernsoul]

23. women love me, walleye fear me!

I'm in!