....stuff deleted

I presume that you are a human.

"Humans, by their very presence, pose a hazard to wildlife." Those are
your words.


No, they aren't, but I'll accept the paraphrase. We have, effectively,
removed ourselves from the ecosystem as it existed naturally, so the end
result is that when we go into nature, we do so as invaders.

So your "pains" do not matter. You by your very presence as a human are
disturbing animals in their habitat. And yet you continue to invade
their habitat.

Indeed, I do. Yet I do what I can to minimize that impact. You, do not.
Therein lies the difference. Your sophistry aside, you do not have a
point, nor a leg to stand upon. The general scientific consensus is that
man/animal interactions are generally detrimental to the animal.

You violate your own rules. You obviously do not feel
that it is wrong for you to violate your own rules. You only feel that
it wrong for other people, ignorant people like me, to violate your
rules. In your world, I am not one of you and therefore I must be
harming the animals. In your prejudice you have presumed that I have
harmed or that I will harm the environment and the animals that live
there. The animals are fine with me. I know, because when I return the
same ones are still there. The habitat is the same.

I did not state that these are "rules," nor that they are mine. The boy
scouts have rules. If, for example, you puke at Philmont, the wilderness
scout ranch, you are expected to return the contents of your stomach
back from whence they came. The scouts have adopted an attitude of
minimizing their impact in the area, but I don't think I'll go by their
"rules."

My point is simply this. You will not be setting the rules for me. I
will ignore your rules as you do.
You may go bite your lip and scream if you like.


My point is that you are a impolite individual who lacks the social
skills of discourse. Sad that you think your pathetic argument has any
emotional impact upon me, but then, you are pretty full or yourself.

The animals will have nothing to fear because I ignore your rules. The
reason for this is that I have my own rules, rules that actually do
good. I follow those rules.

The reason that I must press this in a very blunt and rather rude
fashion is because...

You are a rude individual.

I have seen the explosion of hysterical rules.
Various groups are trying to stop the enjoyment of the outdoors by other
people. They are usually elitest types like you that think a paddle
placed too harshly will cause some irreparable and permanent harm. It
is a problem of degree. You don't know where to draw the line,
therefore you can't be trusted to set the rules. You draw the line at a
standard that can't be met. That's why you must break your own rules.


I set rules for myself only. I believed I was attempting to edify
someone who knew very little about the subject. Instead, I find myself
facing an individual who is proud of her ignorance. You don't know me,
you don't know my philosophies, and you don't know what you are talking
about.

You are the insensitve one. You don't care about other people. Just
animals. You assume that only you care about habitat and no one else
could possibly care as much. Well your wrong. We cherish our wild
places. We're just not hysterical if someone eats a fish. We want
rules that perserve wildlife but allow access. There is a balance.
Reasonable people can find the balance. Hysterical ones must be ignored
because they set rules that will be broken.

The only way I can explain it to you is this.

When the speed limit was 70 mph, most everyone obeyed. When the speed
limit was set at 55mph, we became a nation of speeders.


Bull****, to use your oh so eloquent words. I was there when the speed
limit was 70. I was driving then. There was as much adherence to the
speed limit then as there is now. The difference, however, was that
people back then stopped for yellow and red lights. A rare example of
when life in the 60's was a (modest) improvement.

Animals can't set rules (such as wipe your feet) in their environment,
so we have to do some of that for them.

Your insensitivity and closed mind does not speak well of you.


My words speak for me.

Feebly, but they do speak.

Rick

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 21:50:08 +0200, Wilko wrote:

It's even more annoying to read the writings of someone who has so
little grasp of the English language that he can't comprehend messages
written by those who do. Of course, that utter lack of understanding
doesn't stop him from applying his nonsensical ideas to replies to their
posts... despite the fact that he is overreacting to something they
never even mentioned in their posts in the first place.


It's even more annoying to read the writings of someone who really has
no intelligent response at all, and instead falls back upon the tired
and old nonsensical reply that the author's grasp of the English
language is so poor he cannot possibly understand what he has read or
wrote. Perhaps if this someone had a valid point or arguement, then
I could understand the response. But to mearly take a shot at someone
because they may or may not understand English is ignorant at best.

Professional Target wrote:
: rant
: Fishing. Everywhere, more anglers and more fishing line. Not only do I
: need to worry about not hitting their lines or "getting too close" to them,
: but I also find my paddle and occasionally my rudder fouled by old discarded
: fishing line. Everywhere.

: Oh, and when they're about to cast, they look impatient while I pass by. As
: if that 10 seconds extra time for me to pass is going to cost them the "big
: catch of the day". A few of the more ignorant ones don't even care - they
: just cast off anyway.

: This is the case with ALL of the rivers and smaller lakes nearby. I'm
: beginning to wonder which is worse: jetski's or anglers...

: /rant

I've been drivin into woodpiles by jetski's, so i'd vote them as worst,
usually anglers are pretty polite and often ask if I can free up their
line (Rescued a RC airplane once too).

Say "Hi", talk nice to them, and watch how nice they can be.

--
John Nelson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page
http://www.chicagopaddling.org http://www.chicagofishing.org
(A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell)

When the speed limit was 70 mph, most everyone obeyed. When the speed
limit was set at 55mph, we became a nation of speeders.


Do you really believe that? When the speed limit was 55, people drove 70.
When the speed limit was changed to 70, people started driving 85. I drive
75 and get passed like I'm standing still. "Reasonable people can find the
balance"? Maybe, but only if they see the need for balance in the first
place.

~~~~~~~~~~
Theirs is a hidden land; wolf-haunted,
Stormy highlands with perilous paths,
Where mountain torrents plunge through the mists
And flow unseen...

-Beowulf
~~~~~~~~~~

Chicago Paddling-Fishing writes:
I've been drivin into woodpiles by jetski's, so i'd vote them as worst,
usually anglers are pretty polite and often ask if I can free up their
line (Rescued a RC airplane once too).

Say "Hi", talk nice to them, and watch how nice they can be.

Oh, I have, and some of them are great people. My only complaint is with the
apparently increasing numbers of those who aren't so great...


--
Man is the only animal that laughs and weeps, for he is the only animal
that is struck with the difference between what things are and what they
ought to be.

Sorry Moose, *you* don't get it...

This related to another thread, is which your countryman (which is
supposed to have at least a basic grasp of the English language, it
being his native tongue) took several words out of context and made up
other statements out of thin air, which he refers to in this post of
his, at which his "pot shot" was taken.

It might be nice of you to try to stand up for someone else, but you
definately picked the wrong person here.

Wilko

Moose wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 21:50:08 +0200, Wilko wrote:


It's even more annoying to read the writings of someone who has so
little grasp of the English language that he can't comprehend messages
written by those who do. Of course, that utter lack of understanding
doesn't stop him from applying his nonsensical ideas to replies to their
posts... despite the fact that he is overreacting to something they
never even mentioned in their posts in the first place.



It's even more annoying to read the writings of someone who really has
no intelligent response at all, and instead falls back upon the tired
and old nonsensical reply that the author's grasp of the English
language is so poor he cannot possibly understand what he has read or
wrote. Perhaps if this someone had a valid point or arguement, then
I could understand the response. But to mearly take a shot at someone
because they may or may not understand English is ignorant at best.


--
Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl
Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe
---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.---
http://wilko.webzone.ru/