(Y2Y) I think I might get flamed for this...

[Copidosoma]

Alright,

Am I the only one who is getting a bit tired of four months of Rob's conspiracy theory/"witchhunt" about Y2Y/environmentalism in general? I know, I don't have to read it blah, blah blah.

Sure, he has every right to apply as much scrutiny as he wishes to anything he wishes but I think it is time for a bit of a rest and thoughtful contemplation here.

He's done a great job at attacking an initiative that is flawed but has very good and scientifically sound concepts at its heart. I'd put the ratio of those two things at about 10% to 90% (just my somewhat informed opinion). Anyone who puts this level of scrutiny (very thorough job Rob, by the way) to any project on this level will likely be hard pressed to find such flattering ratios. There are bad apples and rotten bits in every bunch. Anyone who thinks the "outdoorsmen" community is homogeneous and puritanical is in a state of delusion.

And we all know from Micheal Moore's many examples that just presenting facts in a credible and convincing way does not make ones arguments all that useful in judging something.

I really liked the bit where he suggests that environmental ideologies are "based on flawed U.S. models or on highly-financed propaganda machines that prey on emotions."
I've seen some pretty big emotional outbursts around this community that are not in any way based on facts or science and plenty of values hyped which are highly influenced by "outside sources" (read, advertisers, manufacturers, political parties). Kinda like the pot calling the kettle...well, you know.


Maybe I'll write an article...


Just my thoughts. Feel free to not respond.

[albertadave]

Originally Posted by Copidosoma

Alright,

Am I the only one who is getting a bit tired of four months of Rob's conspiracy theory/witchhunt about Y2Y/environmentalism in general?

Yes, you probably are the only one. And to call Rob's articles a witch hunt is unfair. You should retract that. I believe that a wide sweeping iniative by organizations with some very questionable members/leaders and associates, like this Y2Y, deserves every bit of scrutiny that Rob is giving it and then some.

[sjd]

Yeah, I agree it seems like he's chasing ghosts to me. Although to their credit, AO did print a very long rebuttal from the chief of Y2Y, which I thought was good.

I think as a community we have got it all wrong though - rather than trying to find skeletons in the closets of groups like Y2Y, we should be building bridges on preserving lands for hunting and fishing - we overlap on 80% of our interests.

The biggest decision-point for outdoorsmen is the issue of motorized recreation. I use a quad to access places to fish sometimes, but I also recognize there are some places where I am glad you have to walk or ride a horse. Having seen some of my favourite places trashed by ATV and off-road crowd, I think my values as an outdoorsman are more aligned with Y2Y.

I have no time for whackos and antis - and I would happily drive PETA off the earth, but I don't think most land conservation NGOs are out to get us.

Flame away!!!

[pogo]

Originally Posted by Copidosoma

Alright,

Am I the only one who is getting a bit tired of four months of Rob's conspiracy theory/witchhunt about Y2Y/environmentalism in general? I know, I don't have to read it blah, blah blah.

Sure, he has every right to apply as much scrutiny as he wishes to anything he wishes but I think it is time for a bit of a rest and thoughtful contemplation here.

He's done a great job at attacking an initiative that is flawed but has very good and scientifically sound concepts at its heart. I'd put the ratio of those two things at about 10% to 90% (just my somewhat informed opinion). Anyone who puts this level of scrutiny (very thorough job Rob, by the way) to any project on this level will likely be hard pressed to find such flattering ratios. There are bad apples and rotten bits in every bunch. Anyone who thinks the "outdoorsmen" community is homogeneous and puritanical is in a state of delusion.

And we all know from Micheal Moore's many examples that just presenting facts in a credible and convincing way does not make ones arguments all that useful in judging something.

I really liked the bit where he suggests that environmental ideologies are "based on flawed U.S. models or on highly-financed propaganda machines that prey on emotions."
I've seen some pretty big emotional outbursts around this community that are not in any way based on facts or science and plenty of values hyped which are highly influenced by "outside sources" (read, advertisers, manufacturers, political parties). Kinda like the pot calling the kettle...well, you know.


Maybe I'll write an article...


Just my thoughts. Feel free to not respond.

I think it's great when any group takes an interest protecting our beautiful land. That makes them just like me. What I don't like is a group that considers themselves the only suitable stewards of that land and want to attempt to wrest control of it. If they were to support and work within existing framework, instead of trying to advance their personal agenda through conjured up issues and propaganda, I'd get behind them.

Just ask them why the corridor doesn't extend into Alaska and see what answer you get.

The difference between Rob's point of view and Y2Y's is that Rob is not trying to create an organization to employ himself and his buddies.

[raised by wolves]

Copidosoma, good point. Pogo, well said, and I have to agree with you, but no matter who the parties may be, they all have an agenda that will involve some degree of self-promotion.

I hope for the best, but I would guess that time is the only barrier between a wild natural area; accessible to sportsman and outdoor enthusiasts of all manner, and a golf course, chalets, and shopping areas for the tourists. Too much money involved for us to hold them off.

Let's keep our fingers crossed for keeping the areas wild, no matter who is calling the shots.

[Copidosoma]

Originally Posted by delburnedave

Yes, you probably are the only one. And to call Rob's articles a witch hunt is unfair. You should retract that. I believe that a wide sweeping iniative by organizations with some very questionable members/leaders and associates, like this Y2Y, deserves every bit of scrutiny that Rob is giving it and then some.

Actually, I don't think it is totally unfair. It is just a gut feeling so I think it might be valid (although just a personal opinion). How about since I don't mean it literally I just put it in quotes?

Not trying to razz ya or anything.

[pogo]

What it amounts to is the evolution of man and how that will affect the land and life around us for the rest of time. It does have to be done right. Some things might be impossible to ever retrieve. I believe there are already a lot of great people working hard and with great conviction to ensure the prosperous future of the land and it's inhabitants, all inhabitants. That being said, nobody is perfect and all ideas must be entertained.

The worst thing that can happen would be a situation where decisions are made by too few to the detriment of all. Maybe some of us fear that initiatives like Y2Y are a threat to some and maybe some of us would be right.

[pogo]

I remain curious about why the corridor is not anticipated to reach into Alaska. The answer I received was simply not believable. Do you have any idea why?

[Copidosoma]

Fair enough pogo, It just seems like mud-slinging to me. Rather than coming up with solutions or viable alternatives (that maximize the number of people who are happy with the solutions rather than just protecting the interests of particular groups).

The status-quo is not working. Contrary to what many believe. Y2Y (or a modified version of it) is as close to a scientifically sound framework to maximize benefits as I've ever seen.

[Copidosoma]

Originally Posted by pogo

I remain curious about why the corridor is not anticipated to reach into Alaska. The answer I received was simply not believable. Do you have any idea why?

Nope, no idea. I wasn't in on the discussion and I don't really want to speculate.

[pogo]

Originally Posted by Copidosoma

Fair enough pogo, It just seems like mud-slinging to me. Rather than coming up with solutions or viable alternatives (that maximize the number of people who are happy with the solutions rather than just protecting the interests of particular groups).

The status-quo is not working. Contrary to what many believe. Y2Y (or a modified version of it) is as close to a scientifically sound framework to maximize benefits as I've ever seen.

That's great. I'm sure the sound science would be very welcome input. It could be very useful, among all of the other considerations, in finding a suitable balance of interests, including the political ones.

Aren't you also curious about why their initiative does not include Alaska?

[honda450]

Tell us pogo.

[pogo]

Originally Posted by honda450

Tell us pogo.

I don't know. I'd like to. Ask them yourself and see if you believe it.

[Little Red Man]

Is there any reason you cannot just tell us what they told you; I don't mind hear-say........

[Copidosoma]

Originally Posted by pogo

I don't know. I'd like to. Ask them yourself and see if you believe it.

So, you don't know the reason. You'd like to. But, you think the reason you will get (which you don't have any idea about) will be unbelievable? You sound pretty objective there.

[pogo]

Originally Posted by Copidosoma

So, you don't know the reason. You'd like to. But, you think the reason you will get (which you don't have any idea about) will be unbelievable? You sound pretty objective there.

Come on gents. Just play along with me a little here. Are you thick, lame, or just lazy? Email them.

[altaberg]

Originally Posted by Copidosoma

Alright,

Am I the only one who is getting a bit tired of four months of Rob's conspiracy theory/"witchhunt" about Y2Y/environmentalism in general? I know, I don't have to read it blah, blah blah.

Sure, he has every right to apply as much scrutiny as he wishes to anything he wishes but I think it is time for a bit of a rest and thoughtful contemplation here.

He's done a great job at attacking an initiative that is flawed but has very good and scientifically sound concepts at its heart. I'd put the ratio of those two things at about 10% to 90% (just my somewhat informed opinion). Anyone who puts this level of scrutiny (very thorough job Rob, by the way) to any project on this level will likely be hard pressed to find such flattering ratios. There are bad apples and rotten bits in every bunch. Anyone who thinks the "outdoorsmen" community is homogeneous and puritanical is in a state of delusion.

And we all know from Micheal Moore's many examples that just presenting facts in a credible and convincing way does not make ones arguments all that useful in judging something.

I really liked the bit where he suggests that environmental ideologies are "based on flawed U.S. models or on highly-financed propaganda machines that prey on emotions."
I've seen some pretty big emotional outbursts around this community that are not in any way based on facts or science and plenty of values hyped which are highly influenced by "outside sources" (read, advertisers, manufacturers, political parties). Kinda like the pot calling the kettle...well, you know.


Maybe I'll write an article...


Just my thoughts. Feel free to not respond.

hi,

I have also though about this quite a bit. In another capacity I have been approached by "The Big Wild" for support but I'm still unsure.

I share some of Rob's distrust of some of these initiatives (especially CPAWS) but I also don't think it is all bad.

First, even if an idea and a concept did originate with some questionable characters in the "earth first", PETA and "deep ecology" movement, that still doesn't mean it's all bad.

Second, I am concerned though when I look at the web sites fo these various groups for financial reports, general policy and accountability statements and specific statements regarding their policies on hunting and more generally backcountry access and find nothing? The response by the Exec Director states, that they are not opposed to hunting but have no control over the member groups. I'm afraid they have no policies on hunting and access because they can't agree on it.
I have asked several of these groups some hard questions but all I got back was a paper on the scientific justification of the Big Wild (which I haven't had a chance to read yet).

Third, these groups strike me as a political lobby group and not much more (the letter in response to Rob's disputes that for Y2Y though).
This is also my chief complaint about CPAWS. When I look at other environmental protection groups, for example ACA or The Nature Conservancy of Canada, I can find financial statements and annual reports where they actually show what useful things they do with their money (such as buying habitat). I'm not sure what useful things the Big Wild actually does.

Fourth, one of the things that Rob addressed only in passing in his series is the economics of it all.
Parks have to be maintained, you need wildlife management, infrastructure, law enforcement, fire managemnet and so on. That costs money, either tax money or entrance fees. There is no government in Canada (doesn't matter iof Conservative or Liberal) that will raise taxes for such things in the current political climate. (Please note that this is not a reflection of my opinion on this, just an observation).
The entrance fees for National Parks (including camnping) have constnatly risen to the point where it probably gets pretty expensive for some families to spend a weekend in Jasper. So with 50% of Canada as some kind of park, where is the funding supposed to come from? From CPAWS or the Big Wild?
That's another reason why I hold The Nature Conservancy in high regard, the acquire land for habitat protection and then immediately spend there money to develop a management plan.

So the economics and the lack of policies is what I'm mostly concerned about. I could support the concept of the Y2Y and I actually think hunters should get behind this. The scientific basis for Y2Y is probably sound.

I have this article about the scientific rational of The Big Wild in pdf format, pm me if anybody is interested.