Kind of limited worldview, don’t you think? After all, if the big bad “gun lobby” is able to block all of these “sensible gun laws”, as the media claims, don’t you think they’d be able to ditch Pitmann-Robertson, if there was a will to do so? If hunters and sportsmen really, honestly felt “forced” into paying the freight for conservation, don’t you think they’d be screaming and yeling for the “gun lobby” to do something about it? They seem strangely silent on the subject …

Which brings me to the apparent point of the rest of your response. You seem, as most leftists do, to feel that “proper” environmentalism consists of “preserving” the environment as it might have been were there no humans around to “spoil it”, as if we were not a part of this world.

I know it may be hard for you all to grasp this, but we humans are indeed a part of this world and its environment, and it makes no sense to try to pretend as if we aren’t. All of the peripheral issues aside, that’s what it boils down to. Whether or not you believe that profit is evil, whether or not you believe that human use should be part of the plan for the land, none of that comes into play until that basic fact is accepted.

If it isn’t, none of the rest matters.

I’ve dealt with some of these “enviro-nuts” (slur intended), and I’ve seen how they operate. There is no reasoning with them, and there is no compromise. They do not believe that people have any place “disturbing the natural state of things”, and that belief is fundamentally incompatible with the beliefs of the majority of our population. This is why they have to moderate these beliefs when they present themselves to the majority. If they told most people how they really feel, everyone would see them as nuts.

By calling themselves “responsible stewards of the environment”, they come off sounding pretty good. How good would they sound if they said, “We’re the folks who don’t want people to have access to public lands”?

I have begun to lose faith that the average person has any sense at all that they are so easily conned.

“Given your expressed love of conservation efforts, I’m guessing you love hunting and the shooting sports, yes?”

Not really. When I shoot, it’s target shooting on the range. While I’ve no problem with eating meat, I do confess I’ve not the stomach for hunting.

Fishing’s another story, but I’ve never caught a fish big enough that it needed to be shot with a gun. If you’re ever in South Florida, I recommend the Capt. Bob driftboat out of Riviera Beach. Good man, good fishing.

“After all, the Pittman-Robertson funds generated by the excise taxes these sportsmen pay provide more conservation funding than any other single source in the entire country, including any group like Greenpeace and the like.”

I’m well aware of licensing fees, etc. I’m also well aware of the amount of lead in the water from spent shells and bullets. It’s more or less a usage fee. And let’s be fair, it’s not as if hunters are giving this money out of the goodness of their hearts – they’re forced to by the big bad guv’mint (spit) – Which manages the land and sets limits so they’re not out hunting whitetail and whitetail only.

I’m not trying to be cynical here. I do understand that many hunters do have a respect for the land – but that respect is as it pertains to them. Greenpeace, Nature Conservancy, etc. work so that land and resources are left as natural and with as little human interference as possible.

“and thus only deserving of laughter at the thought that someone other than a left-wing liberal might be concerned about the environment too?”

Because the problem I have with “right-wing” environmentalists is that the land must be preserved – when it’s “cost effective”, doesn’t interfere with our own plans, and more importantly, when there’s something in it for us. Rightwingers always ask “Where are all these environmental calamities that the lefties said were going to happen! They didn’t! Haw-haw-haw! Have some more Gore-tex and Alfalfa sprouts hippie!”. They didn’t happen because there’s a segement of humanity that is out there constantly trying to stave them off – and (as demonstrated here) they earn nothing by contempt from most people.

I want to hear a right-winger say “You know what? Let’s preserve this land just for the sake of preserving it”. Or “hey – maybe we should do something to preserve this species because we’re the ones who’re causing its extinction”.

Then I’ll be convinced that the legend of the Republican environmentalist is more than just a myth.

The fact that you wish to remain willfully ignorant is not my problem (well, I suppose it is my problem since you probably meet the minimum requirements to vote, but I guess there’s nothing I can do about that). I know what the environmental movement is doing in China, Russia, Iran (hey, there’s a strawman we haven’t seen yet!).

But you said:

“Because the collapse of communism exposed the failures of a government run economy.”

In “backing up” your claim that the environmental movement doesn’t go after government run/socialist economies. But they do, vociferously. So, you’ll just have to come up with a whole argument, I guess.

Ha! I kid. When have facts ever meant anything to the Limbaugh-wing of the GOP?

Why aren’t they protesting the true devastation in China or Iran?

Moral cowardice.

Just like all those lefties in America who complain about losising their “civil liberties”, but never having to worry about a knock on their door at midnight.

Given your expressed love of conservation efforts, I’m guessing you love hunting and the shooting sports, yes? After all, the Pittman-Robertson funds generated by the excise taxes these sportsmen pay provide more conservation funding than any other single source in the entire country, including any group like Greenpeace and the like. Even though the media never mentions it.

Or is hunting and shooting too “Republican”, and thus only deserving of laughter at the thought that someone other than a left-wing liberal might be concerned about the environment too?

I especially love (and give) to the Nature Conservancy because they buy land and put it aside and there isn’t a damn thing you can do about it.

And also Sea Shepherd (watch Whale Wars on Animal Planet!) because their direct action enforces laws that that world governments will not.

Hey, I’m a fan of the Boy Scouts (was a scout – made it to Assistant Scout Leader, but not past Tenderfoot before I dropped out). Boy Scouts aren’t liberal or conservative. Are you asking me if I’m losing sleep because they’re banning homosexuals from being scoutmasters or athiests from joining? No.

But this:

“The Boy Scouts have done more for the environment that all of the Sierra Club like groups added together.”

Please. It’s groups like Geenpeace, Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy, etc. who get things done, like lobbying for environmental protections, who preserve lands by purchasing them or through direct action. I’m not dismissing the Boy Scouts spreading of awareness, but to say they’ve done more than every environmental group is gross hyperbole.

You have no idea what the hell you’re talking about. Greenpeace’s “economic” agenda is to stop the world’s environment from being polluted. I mean, the Netherlands – pretty socialist, right?:

Nov. 17, 2008: THE HAGUE — Dutch police on Saturday arrested more than 80 Greenpeace activists, many of whom had chained themselves to structures and machinery at the site of a new coal-fired power station in Rotterdam.

Mexico, a developing nation, right?

Aug. 3 2007: MEXICO CITY — Mexican police have arrested two lumberjacks accused of murdering an anti-logging activist, authorities said on Thursday, following criticism from environmental group Greenpeace of official foot-dragging.

Russia, pretty hardcore to get arrested there, right?

Nov. 21, 2006:

Moscow police have arrested five Greenpeace activists for unauthorized picketing in the city center. The incident occurred at 10:00 near the State Duma building. The ecological activists had planned to stage a protest action against amendments to the Urban Construction Code, including the cancellation of ecological studies.

I’m going to guess there aren’t as much focus on these types of events (and keep in mind, this is just what I was able to come with by typing “greenpeace” and “arrest” into Google) BECAUSE WE DON’T LIVE IN CHINA. Also, our system of democracy allows for more protests than China’s authoritarian regime (which, again, not grading on a curve).

“They became environmentalists. Hence the description of ‘green on the outside, red on the inside.’”

I’m curious, when you regurgitate this stuff you hear from Limbaugh, does it taste better going down or up?

Name me one organization that has been more consistantly green and conservationally minded and involved a larger percentage of the American population for a longer period of time than the Boy Scouts of America.

The Boy Scouts have done more for the environment that all of the Sierra Club like groups added together.

How do liberals treat the Boy Scouts? Remind me.

Greenpeace and WWF are political groups. There main concern is going after capitalism and replacing it with a government-run economy.

The enviro movement took off in the 1990s. Why? Because the collapse of communism exposed the failures of a government run economy. But the socialists didn’t say “hey, we were wrong. Free markets and democracy are the best.” They became environmentalists. Hence the description of “green on the outside, red on the inside.”

” It is also my observation that some of the worse run governments are the biggest contributors to environmental harm: Eastern Europe, India, China, Indonesia, etc. The preservationists (vs. conservationists) are the very ones who criticize US policies while ignoring “worst polluters” abroad.”

You need to do your homework. Groups like Greenpeace, Sea Shepherd, WWF, etc. are constantly going after these countries (ESPECIALLY China and especially after the recent extinction of the baiji – the first marine mammal to go extinct since the 50s, a direct result of China’s industrial policies).

But the environmental movement isn’t grading on a curve. The fact that China gets an F minus doesn’t make our C plus awesome. Everything compared to China is going to be exponentially better.

Thanks for bringing it up. It needs to be talked about – without fear of condemnation from our fellow believers or Republicans.

Excellent point on the “worst polluters”. I agree.

My in-laws house had yellow stained ceilings from years of nicotine filled smoke rising. It seems logical that our atmosphere would act as a similar ceiling to the millions of pound of pollutants spewed from millions of smoke stacks worldwide. That 2nd grade level logical observation shouldn’t be seen by Evangelicals or conservatives as some “tree hugging, liberal agenda” observation!

Maybe my Evangelical circles are a little more radical or fundamentalist in nature than yours. However, most Evangelicals I know would NEVER admit that those types of things go on. That’s 1/2 of the problem. There is a wall of silence where the logical brains of Evangelicals crosses path with their Faith. I’m not surprised you didn’t “hear” about it.

Thanks for bringing it up. It needs to be talked about – without fear of condemnation from our fellow believers.