PDA

View Full Version : Greenies Lie...



My1stJeep
03-13-2006, 09:49 PM
Ok, now that I have your attention I found this link to an article I had been looking for. Some ask if we are always just making a conspiracy theory when we say they lie. Here is an article, published in the Wall Street Journal on an editorial page. Prior to going into the authors opinions, which you may agree with or not, it outlines some of the lies that have been told. Hopefully that portion will give you a look into the type of people we are dealing with.

The rest you can debate somewhere else, I would appreciate it if we can keep this thread on topic about the lengths that these organizations will go to in order to move forward with their agendas.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=105001823

Thought it might be useful for people to see that the claims we make are not conspiracy, but the truth.

FrenchChili
03-13-2006, 11:10 PM
ThanX for posting this...learned more than I thought. I'm sure the BLM knows about all that, I just hope they listen to us a bit more...

My opinion, they will go to full lentgh, unless we magicaly influence them otherwise. There's got to be something more than saving the green stuff. I'm sure $ or whatever else is invloved...I mean why bother so much as to lie???

I'm tired, short minded tonight...i'll come back tom. with clearer thoughts.

My1stJeep
03-14-2006, 07:21 AM
The only reason to lie is you feel you have something to gain. In these cases there were areas they wanted closed to human traffic, including OHV use. They had no legitimate reason so they manipulated the data or planted data, then used things like the ESA to try to push their thoughts on everyone.

My intent was not to get back into a debate about if the ESA is good or bad in its current form, but rather to show how and that they do misuse tools in place to protect the environment. To me it shows they have their own agenda and the environment is not really their priority or they would be using valid data and not have to make things up in order to get things done. If they were on the up and up about everything, if the data did not support closure they would move on to the next area, instead they manipulate it in an attempt to get their own way.

azrubyman
03-14-2006, 08:10 AM
Thanks for posting this Chris!
Ken

FrenchChili
03-14-2006, 08:20 AM
So is the debate inevitable?:D

My1stJeep
03-14-2006, 08:24 AM
John,

First let me thank you for doing exactly what I asked not to be done in this thread, can you not read or is it just comprehension you have an issue with?

I asked we not focus on the second part, this was just showing the lengths greenies will go to in order to try and get their way. The second part is just an opinion based on this persons belief, the lies depicted in the beginning are facts.

You have always questioned comments and throw out the conspiracy theory when I bring these types of action done by the greenies up, so I figured I would generally post up something that shows the things I have said are not made up, they are not conspiracies, but are in deed facts that they do manipulate it. I won't argue that many side manipulate them, point I brought up quite awhile ago.

*** does tobacco have to do with land use issues? Who is Bjorn Lomborg??? What is he an author to??? Obviously something to do with the CATO institute, and no I am not going to read it all it has to do with Tobacco, how on earth does that show that the PRO OHV is lieing about anything? Can we stick on topic? Is that too much to ask?

They author of the article I directed you to is "BY PETE DU PONT. So not only did you not stick to what I asked for this thread (something you have gotten upset for people doing and not sticking to the facts or what should be contained in a thread), you went off on a different author about a topic that has nothing to do with this one.

Again I asked we not debate the opinion portion, it is just that and there is no way to prove it wrong as opinions are not wrong. I would appreciate it if we can stay on topic, this is a thread to show the lengths the greenies will go and to prove my point that they do lie, cheat and missuse things like the ESA in an attempt to get there agenda passed. I will not and did not imply that they are the only ones who lie, but if you are trying to prove the opposite point of view might want to find them from those organizations that oppose the greenies, not going out in left field and proving tobacco companies lie.

My1stJeep
03-14-2006, 08:25 AM
Frenchchili

Yes it is as John just can't seem to read and instead of debating land use he has now shifted a land use thread to tabocco. Good move when you are caught in a corner with now way out, just shift the focus off to something else... :D

My1stJeep
03-14-2006, 08:48 AM
John,

You are proof getting a college education is worthless for some people.

The first part of the article is fact, what I opened this about.

The second is opinion using information that author choose to use, which by the way is no more fact or fiction that some of the BS you sling here from your one sided websites. You choose to believe your website information and he chose to believe a different one.

Your approach just proves me right. I am talking about land use issues and where to you go, tabacco??? Hmm excatly how does that refute what I am saying? It doesn't...DOH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You were in a corner based on no way to refute the upper portion so you went on the attack of the lower, opinion portion, of the page, the part you could attack as I knew your opinion would not match and was the only defense point you could take. Then to add insult to your thought processing you went after tabacco??? If you are going to debate it wouldn't it be more beneficial to stick with land use?

See you went way off topic, why does one do that, to simply get away from the real issue. This thread was meant to show you that the things we say about them planted evidence etc... are not conspiracy theories, which you sometimes like to say they are. Again, a nice tactic when you have no where to go.

You are the first to try and refute things, I only wanted to stick with what were facts of the article, as again the second part is opinioin and we can debate that all day long with no progress. I merely pointed out the portion of the article that was FACT, I am sorry you cannot separate the two, maybe they should offer that in a class.

Simple lesson, seperate the fact from the opinion and debate the facts as opinions can't be proven wrong, they are an interpretation of the facts from ones own mind. Therefore debating the second part is useless, as I pointed out, but you couldn't even stick to the facts and went off on tabacco.... ncie move.

My1stJeep
03-14-2006, 08:50 AM
John, you are nothing more than an arse, having to twist words cause you cannot stay on topic. I cannot believe you waste our oxygen by breathing.

rockwerks
03-14-2006, 09:08 AM
who want popcorn?.........

My1stJeep
03-14-2006, 09:22 AM
John,

What do I want? Right now, for you to go back under the rock you came.

As for personal attack let me get to a level you can understand, You started it... :p I seem to recall you went out on the limb and called me a weenie before I ever attacked you.

Second, you are correct the author is tryng to present his opinion, just like anyone including the people you listed on the tabacco issue and the greenie web sites you list up here, that includes the Center for Biological Diversity. All have an agenda and will take the data and manipulate it to their needs. I have never said the won't, but when I have presented things like this I have been accused of using a consipracy theory.

The first part of that article is fact, there are court records to prove it, admissions of guilt for doing it. They are facts period.

The second is nor more or less any better than any website you have put out giving a point of view. This article just disagrees with your opinion, and as I stated I did not want to address the second half as I knew we would go down this path, and I did not state weather or not I agree.

Since we know this, I stated it from square one, what part don't you get? So if you don't want a personal attack, don't start one. And belive me if I am going to go down the path of a personal attack you haven't seen nothing yet.

Last, who is the one altering otehrs words to make your point, playing a bit of a childish game there and yet you want to come down on me??? Hmmm kinda like the pot calling the kettle black if you ask me.

As for your point, I believe I made it for you before you even went on, but you have always called conspiracy when we say they enviros do these thngs, so what is your issue seeing the point of this thread?

As far as the greenies lieing vs the OHV. When the OHV's had to fight it they paid for a neutral group to perform the data collection, and requested the courts to appoint the company. That way it was more likely the data coming out was true and not skewed.

Will I say that the OHV groups do everything right? No I won't, that would be a great definition of hypocracy. However since you like to call conspiracy I thought I would show you more accurate proof of why we see it the way we do. Again the second half could be debated forever based on anyone can find "facts" or "data" that will suppor their opinion. Many times that could be skewed, well always it will be skewed to show their view point. I am not arguing that, nor did I ever. Exactly the reason I did not want to debate the second half, it is a lose lose scenario debating that. However comments on what can be depicted as true facts is a different story and the first part is listed as facts, again based on court findings and admissions of guilt by the parties doing the actions.

My eye problems, maybe you should take the blinders off before you go off questioning others.

SavageSun4x4
03-14-2006, 09:25 AM
Ok, now that I have your attention I found this link to an article I had been looking for. Some ask if we are always just making a conspiracy theory when we say they lie. Here is an article, published in the Wall Street Journal on an editorial page. Prior to going into the authors opinions, which you may agree with or not, it outlines some of the lies that have been told. Hopefully that portion will give you a look into the type of people we are dealing with.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=105001823

Thought it might be useful for people to see that the claims we make are not conspiracy, but the truth.
The liberal mindset is one that there is no lie to great and if said often enough then it becomes truth.

[A liberal is: "People of the Lie", communist-socialist, take from each according to their ability, give to each according to their needs, a strong central government run by them, PC attitude, denial of truth and facts...

Hillary Klinton, John Dean, Any Kennedy, Michael Moore, Harry Belafonte, Danny Glover, Babs Streisand, Any Baldwin, George Clooney, Harrison Ford, Barbara Boxer, Jesse Jackson, Charles Rangel, Cindy Sheehan, Walter Cronkite, John Kerry, Owl Gore...get the picture?]

From a government standpoint, itís not just the lies, but the ethics: I joined the government in April of 1965 and finished my gov't service in July 1994.

I served as just another civil service worker on a line in an ammo plant, a PFC dogface slogging thru rice paddies, a line officer one of many just doing a job and in my last 10 years I served at a 4 star General Officer command and tripped to the Pentagon/Capitol hill 2-3 times a week.

My observations are many but I can tell you that I saw many ethics violations from the bottom to the top in all areas. Weak ethics lead to lies.

Yes, folks lie when there is something to gain, but often, they lie to for self-protection.

FrenchChili
03-14-2006, 10:00 AM
where's the score keeper:D




Seriously guys, let's calm down a bit on the harshness...stop pocking eyes out...



NOW BACK ON TOPIC

Linda
03-14-2006, 10:07 AM
Interesting article. It appears that the goal is to generate sympathy, fear, or anger in order to gain momentum and/or support for whatever cause is most popular. That tactic seems to work better than logic and facts. If you think about it, doesn't "preserving the forest for future generations" sound more appealling than "providing proper management to maintain the forest"?

So... How do you get the public to sympathize with people who want to drive loud motorized vehicles into forests, scare the little critters, and annoy people who are out there just looking for a little peace and quiet? I hope this question isn't too far removed from the intent of this thread.

Sandee McCullen
03-14-2006, 10:42 AM
Interesting article. It appears that the goal is to generate sympathy, fear, or anger in order to gain momentum and/or support for whatever cause is most popular. That tactic seems to work better than logic and facts. If you think about it, doesn't "preserving the forest for future generations" sound more appealling than "providing proper management to maintain the forest"?

So... How do you get the public to sympathize with people who want to drive loud motorized vehicles into forests, scare the little critters, and annoy people who are out there just looking for a little peace and quiet? I hope this question isn't too far removed from the intent of this thread.

No, I don't necessarily believe "preserving the forest for future generations" sounds more appealing than "providing proper Management to maintain the forest"

WHY exactly shouldn't the forests be "used" by all? Proper MANAGEMENT allows for responsible use for future generations. "Preserving" for WHAT??? If we're closed out now what exactly do "future generations" get? zero is still zero.

Sandee McCullen
03-14-2006, 11:23 AM
Sandee, I don't think Linda was saying one sentiment works better than another, but one is perceived as more appealing...

Point being, appealing does not equal what works better or is more sensible.

Politics is often a game of perception, sometimes I think we are losing the game in this area...


Maybe not but if we just passively go along with what the greenies have been preaching for years we're no better than they are. Its time WE stood up and be heard. It's time some COMMON SENSE be heard. Locking up our lands for the future makes no sense. Using our lands with respect to insure use for the future makes some sense. Some of the greenies today are so out to lunch they don't care if we LOCK UP LANDS TODAY because they won't be around for "future" and they simply don't care.

Guess it's just part of me but I WANT TO BE HEARD!!! I have a right to be heard............ the TRUTH has a right to be heard.............. FACTS have a right to be heard.

TRobertsRN
03-14-2006, 11:54 AM
Everyone lies? I disagree. Different people may come to different conclusions with the same data or focus on what gets their attention (fits their agenda).

When these are the disagreements then a common conclusion is possible. When an intention lie is made this is not possible.

Honesty is a gift you give yourself that no one can take from you. Now I am not a fool. In fact there is no politician in the world that I trust to tell the truth. But I don't believe that all people will lie if it benefits them.

If someone believes that all people lie, he is not to be trusted.

It is not my intent to insult anyone here. My intent is that we should not fail to report lies from the greenies and not tarnish our own agenda by tolerating it in those on our side. It is my hope that greenies will continue to lie as it helps our side.

My1stJeep
03-14-2006, 11:58 AM
While I agree we need to get the correct message out there, and preserving does sound more appealing to the general public. However ask around, you will most likely find that the historical use of the word preserving has been used by the green organizations for years instead of the word closed. They knew if they said we want to "close" these lands vs we want to "preserve" these lands what would happen, they would have received a lack of support from Joe Public.

While preserving the lands is what we want, we would first have to redefine it in the public eye (when talking about land management), the same with conservation, and other words. Most of the words over the years that say what we stand for have been used by our opposition and using them would be a bit missleading to the general public. I think that is why managed has been taken up. It is not to say we should not take on those words and change public opinion, I think we can agree we all see that as a huge need. This is just why some of us old timers hear those words and cringe, cause the last 100 times we heard it, it really meant closed.

Just an FYI and something to think about, just changing the word might include pushing out a new definition prior to that so that the public does not missunderstand out message.

Tom Schenk
03-14-2006, 12:05 PM
OOHH the irony of your post Chris...Now I will show you how you are easily manipulated...by opinions no less...

BLAA, BLAA, BLAAAA

Why are you always "that guy". Chris clearly stated why he posted the link. If you can't control yourself, go stir the **** somewhere else as it is not needed here.

Tom Schenk
03-14-2006, 12:06 PM
Thanks for the link Chris. Luckily I am able to take it for what it is worth.:rolleyes:

Wildcat455
03-14-2006, 12:38 PM
Frankly, I am "that guy" because I care about my activities. Ever heard of group think? Someone has to stir the **** to see if it still smells bad because you have grown so accustomed to the smell you don't notice it anymore. So if you don't like the smell of your own **** don't be surprised, neither do I.

Please don't stir my poopy! I KNOW it stinks, and I'm not accustomed to it yet!! :D

Tom Schenk
03-14-2006, 12:43 PM
***, you are missing the point. Chris posted the article as an example of the integrity (or lack) of some enviro-mental-ists. In no way did he endorse the entire article; in fact, he mentioned that the latter was nonsense. I'm pretty sure that most of us have enough common sense to know where the train is going before we hop on board, it simply doesn't need to be said. It's not that anyone is saying that you are wrong, just to get off your high horse. I think we're all fed up with your cynicism of this groups members.

AZG23
03-14-2006, 03:55 PM
I think we ran into some greenies today on Tax Collector...they were about at the end...I think they laid down so we wouldnt cross...I felt a kick on the floorboards as we went across the obstacle*...:)

Then come to find out they parked their vehicle...IN THE MIDDLE of the trail leading out...so we torched it*...and drove over it...

* disclaimer: No rocks or vegetation were harmed in the re-enactment portrayed above....

:D:D

rockwerks
03-14-2006, 04:13 PM
Glad to know you are speaking on the behalf of the group Tom...Anything else you would like decide for them? Please, we are all on the edge of our seats waiting...:rolleyes: TOM is right, we are not ad dumb as you wish we where

And I am on a high horse? At least I speak for myself.

and unfortunately most of us have to deal with it

You know what Tom, I am not going to belabor my points any further...Sure you could just read the first half...Yea...right. You could just dismiss the second half...But why? The author's reasoning is the same...

Greenies lie about the facts = Can't trust them.
Anti-enviros are truthful about the facts = You can trust them.

I dont believe we have any anti environmental people here, most of us love and respect nature..........that is why we re out in it every weekend we can

I guess, my simple mind just can't ignore the blantant onesidedness of the article or the broadly painted generalities the author espouses.

almost as bad as your onesided views huh?

1BLKJP
03-14-2006, 05:21 PM
Hmmmm, here's on that they got caught on in Tucson. I would tend to think this one is pretty irrefutable proof of the tactics they will use just because they think they have the size to scare people.

http://www.azstarnet.com/dailystar/dailystar/58068.php

Interesting little excerpt from the article. Suckling is the CforBD CEO now I believe.

The center, which is typically the plaintiff in court, will probably appeal the decision, and its insurance should pay for at least some of the damages, if they're upheld, said policy director Kieran Suckling.

"We did things with the best of intentions. If there were some mistakes, they were honest mistakes," he said.

Suckling said he was most worried about the verdict's "chilling effect" on advocacy groups.
"We really feel victimized by a wealthy banker who can afford to hire a large legal team to nitpick you to death," he said.

Hmmm, seems the poor choice of words he used above is exactly what they do in the hundreds of lawsuits they file every year.

TRobertsRN
03-14-2006, 05:54 PM
Ok...I do not mean to split hairs with you nor insult you or anyone else, BUT EVEYONE LIES. Yes, your a liar and so am I and unless your Christ, please move along. That being said...



When the facts themselves are in question, then a truth can easily become a lie. Take tobacco, although they can sit their and say the data shows no abolsute cause and effect relationship (because that will NEVER be possible in humans due to ethical reasons) they are in effect using the truth (i.e. a truth about experimental vs. statistical relationships) to protect a lie (that tobacco does not cause cancer).

So tell me again about lies and deceit?

John,

I continue to disagree. One does not have to be Christ, Budda, Lau Zu ,or Mohamed to not lie. It is a choice, an act of free will. A human can choose not to just act on instinct. We can make choices to do the right thing even though it may not be the best thing for us. Ask me any question about me and my life and I will tell you the truth whether it shines a good or bad light on me. I do not believe myself to be rare in this. I believe most people outside of politics to be honest. Have I done some things others would be ashamed of and want to hide, yes. Would I lie to cover them up, no. Would I lie to protect myself or someone I loved from shame or persicution, no. I believe everyone should be responsible and accountable for their actions. My grandfather and father taught me these ideals. I pass them on to my children.

When we say "everyone lies" we are saying it is OK to lie. It is Ok not to take responsibility for our actions.

The argument everyone (fill in the blank) dosen't fly no matter what fills in the blank outside of everyone dies and we are working on that one.

You don't know me so I can forgive you once for calling me a liar. Being honest and truthfull is known by all who know me well as my most precious thing I have.

If this were the time of President Jackson I would ask you to choose weapons. We are a bit more civilized than that now.

Barker
03-14-2006, 06:42 PM
Folks,

I gotta tell you, from an environmental perspective and much of the publics' perspective, we jeepers look like nut-cases. Finding an example of greenies' lies doesn't seem to discredit them too much either.

I came from back east, and before I got a jeep, I was pretty heavily environmental. I can't be the only jeeper from that background either - it seems logical that some environmental hiker type folks get jeeps and want to go OHV with folks.

There is some common ground I'd think we can exploit if we could get both sides to be reasonable. Both sides do desire "preserving" our environmental assets for our children. We all care about the quality of our wilderness areas.

The biggest destroyer of our natural wilderness areas is not OHV, it's development of one sort or another. Development - and where does that get its power from - money. Both environmentalists and OHV have the same enemy in this case, mostly developers of one sort or another. I'm new to Az, but I can see what's limiting our access - the huge amount of residential and commercial development.

If only we could figure out a way to work together, enviros and OHV'ers have so much in common. And we have roughly the same goal. Plus we're both pitted against a well monied opposition - we both need numbers of citizens to rally to make any progress.

Bill

TRobertsRN
03-14-2006, 07:07 PM
Barker I agree.

If the truth were known about people conserned about the environment and off road fans most would be closer rather than farther apart in their opinions. We share a love of the outdoors. It is the extreams that make news. There are off roaders that don't tread lightly and environmentalist that I admit I call greenies at times that take things to extreams too.

I think if everyone was informed and all voted there would be less division in America on all issues not just off road use. Unfortunately we don't all vote and it is only the extreams on each side that get pubilicity. It makes it difficult to meet in the middle and do what is right instead of what gets someone elected or richer. Don't get me wrong I am all for getting rich just not at the expense of doing what is right.

I love to off road but always leave it cleaner than I found it. I will change my Willys to Propane not just for the climbing performance but to put less pollution in the air. Do I believe folks up North should have l ost their livelyhood for the spotted owl or that off road use should be stopped because of something similar, no. Are there ways to comprimise and make both sides of an issue like the spotted owl acceptable to most of the people? I think so. But the exptrames of each side will always battle for just their side and that will make the news and be the things some use to gain political office. I would hope we could be the voice of reason in the wilderness and not be viewed as nuts as I know I am guilty of viewing some environmentalist as nuts. Unfortunately there will always be those who will fan the flames and take advantage for political gain whether they really believe in one side or the other.

I agree with you we would be better off if we weren't viewed as off road nuts. But are we nuts because of what we have done or said or what others have said about us whether we are off road nuts or enviro nuts or a mixed nut like me?? :)

AZG23
03-15-2006, 07:32 AM
Those 5-7 lies a day average come from people saying..."Hi! How are you..?" and you saying "fine"...straight up lies...happens on a daily basis...bout 5-7 times. :D

My1stJeep
03-15-2006, 08:08 AM
Barker,

I do not disagree. However when people come in and question why we take such a hard stance we have to give them why. Well being lied to is one of the reasons.

Defintion of preserve is skewed at the moment. Most see it as what it means but fail to know that in reality it means closing off the lands or creating a "Preserve" for animals. Not saying creating one is a bad thing and we do want to preserve things for future generations, but since history has shown that preserve does mean close we will have reattack the definition to its true meaning before we want to go around using it, JMO.

OHV users and greenies do have much of the same goals, however there is a huge difference. OHV users believe we can co-exist in the environment while using our OHV's, the greenies do not. That causes a huge difference.

We have also learned from experience, we used to go into meetings figuring we would have to meet in the middle. Example: there are 100,000 acres up for closure, we used to go in figuring ok plit it 50/50. However when we went in the room already giving up 50,000 acres and the greenies aregued for 100%, the land management woudl used the 50,000 gone as leverage, say ok we will cloe 50% of the remaining, so here is 75,000 closed and 25,000 open, the greenies would then grudgingly agree. Bam we lose an extra 25,000. Fair, uh no. Plus the land management avoided a costly law suit. However after lessons learned like this, lies like exposed on the aticle I linked to, the one Jack linked to are to show what we are up against and to get people involved

Will things like this possible make someone mad? Probably, and guess what, good. Groups like the SC have used tactics like this to become the squeaky wheel. Talk about damage to areas, preservation, angererd people toward these issues to help get them on board or donate funds to help the cause. All this equalled closed lands to OHV use and in some cases to people entirely. Mad people get involved and can be guided to get a better end result and worked with, those not angry will sit around and say it will never happen, oop lost another one. Now to say get angry to get action does not mean to hate, go cause harm to or say I will never work with the opposition, quiet the opposite. As the OHV users continue to organize and more people get involved they will be forced to work with us. All efforts to get them to work with us so far have failed, they don't want to at this point, they would rather spend time creating issues and telling lies and some times facts to get their agenda pushed forward.

Many people who do not understand why we take this hard stance, or have not seen how hard the fight is to keep lands open need to know, they need to know why we need them involved. We may not all agree on how we get each other involved, but we need to. Educating people on what we are up against is not a bad thing in anyway. We are not advocating stepping down to their level either, just know your opposition. I think this is the saying, Keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer. Hits home that we need to understand our oppostion, believe me they do their homework on us, it is time we do it on them.

Several times it has been asked why we take our stand, and get the reply: oh that is just a conspiracy theory, they really don't do that, etc... thus the need to educate people it is not a conspiracy, it is not a lie, it is the history of how we got to where we are today.

SavageSun4x4
03-15-2006, 09:34 AM
If only we could figure out a way to work together, enviros and OHV'ers have so much in common. And we have roughly the same goal.
Bill
All we are saying is give peace a chance...where have I heard that before?

What you are saying is true, however it doesn't work that way, never has, never will.

Other than being a computer engineer, I am a professional combat soldier and I have fought on the frontlines in hand to gland combat. That said, what do you think my opinion on peace is? I love it and think we should have more of it. So I come back from Nam in 68 and head off to college. I had much in common and the same goals as the peaceniks. So why did we get along, why was not I out there sitting-in with them in the demonstrations.

I soon learned that in fact, they didn't want peace, they just didn't want to fight. I am willing to fight to achieve and preserve peace.

Therein lies the problem, we seemingly have the same goals of taking care of our earth, but we believe in use and the greenies don't.

Take the hikers/bikers. Has it ever dawned on them that by having a Jeep they can get further into the outback and make more of their hiking/biking experience? Yes I think, so why are they not on our side? Same goes for bird watchers and anyone who enjoys the outdoors. Fact is we have no friends, ever wonder why?


I agree with you we would be better off if we were not viewed as off road nuts. But are we nuts because of what we have done or said or what others have said about us whether we are off road nuts or enviro nuts or a mixed nut like me?

TRoberts says it and I have said and harped on in many threads/posts. Itís the image stupid. Fact is we donít have any friends in the outdoors recreation world. They donít choose to associate with us we are combative and always looking for the fight. I hear all the time we are not going to negotiate, we gonna show them no compromise, etc. Moreover, when its over we leave with hat in hand, jacket covering red shirt, saying nothing as we contemplate why we lost again.

My1stJeep
03-15-2006, 10:01 AM
TRoberts says it and I have said and harped on in many threads/posts. Itís the image stupid. Fact is we donít have any friends in the outdoors recreation world. They donít choose to associate with us we are combative and always looking for the fight. I hear all the time we are not going to negotiate, we gonna show them no compromise, etc. Moreover, when its over we leave with hat in hand, jacket covering red shirt, saying nothing as we contemplate why we lost again.


Don ever wonder why we go in saying we are not going to compromise?

We used to do that. Figuring we had to go in with a meet in the middle, so when it came time to negotiate we put up 50%, the said they want it all. land management would take our 50% in hopes to get it done. Greenies say no or we are going to sue. Land management then negotiates with both sides on the remaing 50%, giving us a 50/50 split. End results OHV loses 75% and gets 25%. If we start out saying we are not giving in maybe we can finally keep it closer to fair.

This has happened time and time again throughout this land use battle, been going on for years. We have now figured out we need to approach it differently and stand up for our rights and all I hear is how WE as OHV users won't bend, we won't negotiate, we wear red, etc... I really feel like we are making more excuses, new excuses and losing our back bone. Don you say you are willing to fight for your rights as evident in your military experience, yet it appears to me and maybe I am reading it wrong, but it sure seems like you want to waive the white flag here.

We have been burned more than once, we now want to stand out ground. Will we have to make concessions, yes. WHere?? Where it makes sense as in the areas the prong horn come to bare their young, then migrate away. Most wheelers I know supported the paritial year closer of these areas as it was proven that closures during that time did help the herd increase in numbers. So are we willing to compromise, yes when it makes sense. What we did before was walk in the door offering up 50%, it does not work we lose even more, so why constant badgering on this. If you have a better way to start off without giving up something right off the bat I am all ears. However all the past efforts to do just that have failed, the starting point being a hard line in the sand is the only thing that has worked thus far to help us keep what we currently have.

Funny you should say we are combative, looking for a fight. For many years now we have tried to offer a way to work together to avoid the fightnig with them. It has not worked. They have gone on the offensive and taken our offers to work together as a sign of weekness and attacked us even harder. Now we are taking a harder line to defend ourselves and yet we are being made out to be the bad guy. I find this sentiment very interesting and even disturbing.

My1stJeep
03-15-2006, 10:24 AM
Mostly of for the reasons Don pointed out, compromise. We went in thinking we would all be friends and work together for the common good and just as good natured people figured if we gave half so would they. Turned out as a bad idea.

We could threaten action all we want, but until we have the funds and a proven track record of doing it, it scares no one. In the beginning land management took no threats of law suits serious, however with a track record of following through the greenies have set the precedence that they will. so the land management is scared of those. We have not done it nor do we have the funds to pay a lawyer or team of lawyers to do it, so threats would be idle and in my book idle threats are worse and would put egg on our face. Only challenge it if you can back it up and right now we don't have the money for it.

SavageSun4x4
03-15-2006, 11:17 AM
Don ever wonder why we go in saying we are not going to compromise?

We used to do that. Figuring we had to go in with a meet in the middle, so when it came time to negotiate we put up 50%, the said they want it all. land management would take our 50% in hopes to get it done. Greenies say no or we are going to sue. Land management then negotiates with both sides on the remaing 50%, giving us a 50/50 split. End results OHV loses 75% and gets 25%. If we start out saying we are not giving in maybe we can finally keep it closer to fair.

Sorry I can't do anything about past failures.


This has happened time and time again throughout this land use battle, been going on for years. We have now figured out we need to approach it differently and stand up for our rights and all I hear is how WE as OHV users won't bend, we won't negotiate, we wear red, etc... I really feel like we are making more excuses, new excuses and losing our back bone. Don you say you are willing to fight for your rights as evident in your military experience, yet it appears to me and maybe I am reading it wrong, but it sure seems like you want to waive the white flag here.


That?s you saying that, not me, I have never said wave the white flag in any shape form or fashion. Want to approach it differently? Set down, keep your mouth shut and look them square in the eye till they squirm like a worm in a hot skillet and don?t show them your cards.


We have been burned more than once, we now want to stand out ground. Will we have to make concessions, yes. WHere?? Where it makes sense as in the areas the prong horn come to bare their young, then migrate away. Most wheelers I know supported the paritial year closer of these areas as it was proven that closures during that time did help the herd increase in numbers. So are we willing to compromise, yes when it makes sense. What we did before was walk in the door offering up 50%, it does not work we lose even more, so why constant badgering on this. If you have a better way to start off without giving up something right off the bat I am all ears. However all the past efforts to do just that have failed, the starting point being a hard line in the sand is the only thing that has worked thus far to help us keep what we currently have.

Now you're saying you are going to have to make concessions and are willing to compromise. Which is it standing your ground or making concessions? Our approach is is wishy-washy, there is not common voice other than one of anger about losing for 20+ years. Moreover, no, drawing the hard line in the sand has not worked. Yes IMO it?s the wrong tack and our track record supports shows that. You have NEVER seen me write, give them 50%. Suggest you read my posts/threads carefully and often before you start getting combative.


Funny you should say we are combative, looking for a fight. For many years now we have tried to offer a way to work together to avoid the fightnig with them. It has not worked. They have gone on the offensive and taken our offers to work together as a sign of weekness and attacked us even harder. Now we are taking a harder line to defend ourselves and yet we are being made out to be the bad guy. I find this sentiment very interesting and even disturbing.

Nothing has worked because we stumbled in the door willing to give up 50% coming out the chute.

I'll tell you what I find disturbing, the combative attitude. We gonna getum. No your not, we don't have a Ace card in our hand. Its the greenies, the government, bikers/hikers and us. When the smoke settles we seem to be the ones that are walking away empty handed and wearing nothing but our BVDs.

In fact, the minute I hear someone say they won?t compromise I know they are in a position of weakness, they are going to lose and I am going to take the silver out of their hair, gold out of their teeth and lead out of their butt and sendum to the showers. First, one to open their mouth loses and we walk in the door showing all of our few cards. Let the other fellow talk first; ask questions if you have to open your mouth on something. Let them state their wants let them make the offer. Moreover, always carry the hammer in a velvet bag.

If your not winning stop trying to blame me, better look at yourself and the trail of loses. If you think acting tough is the answer then the results will be just like the Saturday meeting with BLM a few weeks ago. They got tired of hearing our questions that were meant to put them on the spot. You don?t embarrass the folks holding the cards. They got tired of our confrontational manner and they just pulled the plug on the meeting. Yep, you stood your ground, problem was it crumbled beneath you and all you were left with was a putrid smelling red shirt from a too hot room and not enough Right Guard.

You don?t fight and solve the problem, you just need to be willing to do so. Identify the issue(s), look for ways to solve them, by taking into account each ones wants and then seek to discover ways of shared and reciprocated solutions.

My1stJeep
03-15-2006, 12:37 PM
Sorry I can't do anything about past failures.

That?s you saying that, not me, I have never said wave the white flag in any shape form or fashion. Want to approach it differently? Set down, keep your mouth shut and look them square in the eye till they squirm like a worm in a hot skillet and don?t show them your cards.


Don as I said this is how your post came across and I stated I may be reading it wrong, so don't take such offense and get combative. I questioned your content as it does not make sense, it was not meant to be combative, just wanted clarification as to your intent. So far all I hear is how we do everything wrong, even thought we are trying new methods than previously based on those previous failures. I guess constructive critism is good, but into can only be taken as construcrive if it is given in a constructive manor. I see the points you are trying to make, but they are said in a very combative manor and shows you are not happy with us.



Now you're saying you are going to have to make concessions and are willing to compromise. Which is it standing your ground or making concessions? Our approach is is wishy-washy, there is not common voice other than one of anger about losing for 20+ years. Moreover, no, drawing the hard line in the sand has not worked. Yes IMO it?s the wrong tack and our track record supports shows that. You have NEVER seen me write, give them 50%. Suggest you read my posts/threads carefully and often before you start getting combative.
[QUOTE]

I am sorry I disagree. The track record shows being nice does not work. I guess a better definition as to drawing the line in the sand or saying we are not giving in is due. To me that is to say going into the meeting I am starting out at A with the greenies starting out at Z. Prior to this we would go in telling things to the land management we would be willing to give up some stuff, bad idea. To me when I go in I am going to stick to my guns to start with at A, the negotiate from there and make good decisions based on what is presented. Not sure why that is a bad thing in your eyes or how that can be construed as wishy - washy. Please explain.

[QUOTE=SavageSun4x4]
Nothing has worked because we stumbled in the door willing to give up 50% coming out the chute.

And we are doing our best to change that going forward. Again any constructive ideas on how I am all ears.



I'll tell you what I find disturbing, the combative attitude. We gonna getum. No your not, we don't have a Ace card in our hand. Its the greenies, the government, bikers/hikers and us. When the smoke settles we seem to be the ones that are walking away empty handed and wearing nothing but our BVDs.

In fact, the minute I hear someone say they won?t compromise I know they are in a position of weakness, they are going to lose and I am going to take the silver out of their hair, gold out of their teeth and lead out of their butt and sendum to the showers. First, one to open their mouth loses and we walk in the door showing all of our few cards. Let the other fellow talk first; ask questions if you have to open your mouth on something. Let them state their wants let them make the offer. Moreover, always carry the hammer in a velvet bag.


Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. Since the change of attitude we have actually won some battles, where as before we won nothing. So to me as it may seem combative, you are right. Fighting for our rights to have open lands is a battle and needs to be fought. I don't hear to many officers in the military say ok, here is where we make a stand, but if they gat past that tree back up and the new line will be here. Do they order a retreat from time to time based on changes taking place, yep. Do they tell all the soldiers in the field when that will be ahead of time, I don't think so. So here we draw a line, and when it makes sense it gets adjusted. I don't see a difference.



If your not winning stop trying to blame me, better look at yourself and the trail of loses. If you think acting tough is the answer then the results will be just like the Saturday meeting with BLM a few weeks ago. They got tired of hearing our questions that were meant to put them on the spot. You don?t embarrass the folks holding the cards. They got tired of our confrontational manner and they just pulled the plug on the meeting. Yep, you stood your ground, problem was it crumbled beneath you and all you were left with was a putrid smelling red shirt from a too hot room and not enough Right Guard.


Don funny you are still stuck on one meeting. I am not saying some of the other meetings have not gotten heated, but of all the ones I have been at that was the most heated. However it was the first I have seen cut short, yet you make is sound as if they all get cut short and all are like that. The down side was there was one individual up on stage that many in OHV have an issue with, they took the opportunity to get on him. It was maybe not the right way to go about it, but it does not happen at every meeting. The points of what were wrong with that meeting have been made bythose who viewed it as wrong and should be taken as suggestions on how to better conduct them selves. Not sure why you are holding on so tightly to that one incident.



You don?t fight and solve the problem, you just need to be willing to do so. Identify the issue(s), look for ways to solve them, by taking into account each ones wants and then seek to discover ways of shared and reciprocated solutions.

Issues are pretty well spelled out
1) We are losing our lands to wheel on.
2) Previous attempts and ways to deal with it did not work so we are trying new ones. Still looking for even more ways to do it better.
3) Opposition is not willing or at least to this point now willing to sit at the table with us to work it out.
4) Opposition has money and use law suits, lobbyists and public pressure to achieve their agenda.
5) We don't have the money, but need it to accomplish number 4 for our side.

I am sure this list is short, but that is what I could put together off the top of my head.

Again there was nothing combative about my post, just laying out facts.

I am sure you will agree, it is best to know your opposition. Going back to Nam it would have been nice if someone told you your enemy will use children to blow you up. I don't see an issue with informing our members with information that lets them know the tactics of our opposition.