- May 26, 2009
- 562
- 122
- 161
Quote:
Let me begin with an apology for my stereotyping. I tend to get riled at the frequent misuse of authority in this supposedly free nation. I shall try to keep a tighter rein in the future. By the way, I don't drink, though I suppose I am a redneck (but mine's tan).
And the "experts" I was referring to spend NO time in the field.
I think you misunderstood the aim of my statement. The wildlife biologists don't make the law. I was referring to legislators, who often have absolutely no idea what goes on in the real world. I once heard a radio broadcast of an outdoor show, on which they were discussing the possible legalization of deer hunting over bait. (Some folks are strong supporters, some are adamently against it). The host of the show was interviewing a game warden and a wildlife biologist. They were discussing the pros and cons. Then he encouraged listeners to call their respective legislators and let them know how they felt. He went on to say, "Remember folks, some of these legislators don't hunt and have no concept of what goes on out here." My thoughts are, if the guy has no concept of what he's voting on, why is he able to vote on it in the first place? I believe laws should be voted on by those whom they concern and no one else. That's the gist of freedom, is it not? Just because I DON'T smoke doesn't give me the right to say another CAN'T smoke, etc.
I know the biologists have a job, and most of them do their job well I suppose. But often the bottom line is who is actually writing the laws regarding wildlife. The legislators frequently listen to their advisors, and sadly, different special-interest groups have sway with these people. (I'm certain money has nothing to do with it.)
Let me begin with an apology for my stereotyping. I tend to get riled at the frequent misuse of authority in this supposedly free nation. I shall try to keep a tighter rein in the future. By the way, I don't drink, though I suppose I am a redneck (but mine's tan).
I think you misunderstood the aim of my statement. The wildlife biologists don't make the law. I was referring to legislators, who often have absolutely no idea what goes on in the real world. I once heard a radio broadcast of an outdoor show, on which they were discussing the possible legalization of deer hunting over bait. (Some folks are strong supporters, some are adamently against it). The host of the show was interviewing a game warden and a wildlife biologist. They were discussing the pros and cons. Then he encouraged listeners to call their respective legislators and let them know how they felt. He went on to say, "Remember folks, some of these legislators don't hunt and have no concept of what goes on out here." My thoughts are, if the guy has no concept of what he's voting on, why is he able to vote on it in the first place? I believe laws should be voted on by those whom they concern and no one else. That's the gist of freedom, is it not? Just because I DON'T smoke doesn't give me the right to say another CAN'T smoke, etc.
I know the biologists have a job, and most of them do their job well I suppose. But often the bottom line is who is actually writing the laws regarding wildlife. The legislators frequently listen to their advisors, and sadly, different special-interest groups have sway with these people. (I'm certain money has nothing to do with it.)
Last edited:
