Tuesday, June 5, 2012

Getting hassled by the Man

At least that's what's happening to OJ(Owl Jones, not the other one. Although he seems to have the same problems too...... must be all that white girl killing thing.) Anyway, if you somehow missed it, read the latest episode  here.

To respond, he's created some newfangled what's-it called Communists Conservative Outdoors. We're supposed to stay tuned, so, umm.... stay tuned.

And if I may humbly comment......

 He's right. When you take an ideal, a moral call, and create an institution around it and politicize it you do both your cause and yourself a disservice. It's the same thing that Chris Rocks character said about religion in the movie Dogma: It's better to have an idea than a belief. People have killed and died for their beliefs.

I do have to disagree with Owlie on one thing though, I (sorta) don't think the Deeter posting was a personal comment to him. The whole "you either care about wild fish, or don't"...... I don't think that was personal towards Owl. I just think he's been fired up all day (Exibit A: Twitter) over this and read between lines that didn't exist. I have friends that don't fish and in all honestly won't miss any fish: wild, stocked or in tanks at Walmart. So I think that I get Deeter's point.

But then again he did drop the verbiage about lawyers so.......

I also get the TU stance; if you're extreme in your over-zealousness about a cause(i.e. the TU "either you care about clean water or you don't" posturing), you will get a lot of people lukewarm about a cause. They'll send you a couple bucks or give up a Saturday morning.And after all, that's the idea, right?

One of the true failing of Trout Unlimited, in my opinion, is that they try to be both the rabble-rouser on the soapbox and the lobbyist in the hallway. Both are great and both are necessary, but to give resources to one takes from the other. You don't need lobbyists, your members are constituents. Do you really believe that they are so disinterested that they won't sign some online petition for whatever issue is at hand?

Politicians may respond to a greased palm, but they sure as hell will respond if they think they'll lose their job.

The second, and this is the one that pisses me off, is that you guys seem to only care about the issue of the month. It's all Bristol Bay..... Bristol Bay. I agree, it's a stupid idea.

But let me tell you something. I'm from PA. Half a state from me is a little thing called Marcellus Shale. This is destroying fisheries as I type these worlds. Waters are being polluted and people and animals are getting sicker and dying RIGHT THIS SECOND.

And I'm an inquisitive lil fellow.

I did a search on your blog for "Marcellus Shale" and the last posting on your blog you guys had was on June 3, 2010. There were three other postings, one from March of 2010 and then two from 2008. I then searched your entire site and found a news release from May of 2011. I did eventually find a release about the 2012 Marcellus Shale Summit. It was halfway down the search.

Where on the site? Well, here's the breadcrumb:
6 levels into the site. FYI, I'm a web designer by trade; no one goes six levels into a f*cking site. Might as well bury it and cover it with lye.

Seriously guys? You're up in arms over a potential mine in Alaska(as I agree you should) but all but ignore a very real environmental issue that is going on right now.

"Nothing's more important than clean water...." Really, guys?


  1. I happen to agree with your disagreement re: Owl's belief Deeter's post was directed towards him. Otherwise, I'm not sure I've figured out my "stance" on this clean water topic other than I'm personally Pebble Mined out!

    1. Thanks Mike. We're never going to have "clean water" the way the Native Americans knew it. They should just push for "cleaner water" as a striving for improvement and leave it at that.

  2. Great post Anthony. I'm with Mike on this one. Probably the only thing we've ever totally agreed on except that Lilly is a cutie. And tactics are as important as your message.

    1. Thanks Howard. I'm afraid that, on the surface at least, they are getting bogged down with the politics of activism and letting the "active" part fall by the wayside.