Greed is sooooo ugly

Extended discussion forum.

Moderator: Scott Waters

User avatar
Mike Waters
Posts: 835
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:37 am
Location: Bakersfield CA

Re: Greed is sooooo ugly

Post by Mike Waters »

Gerry, maybe I wasn't clear. I'm not interested in your opinion, the only thing it proves is that you have an opinion. I'm sorry your mom was so hard on you as a child but still what does that matter here. I Asked for Proof, Facts that you obviously can't provide. So who is on the loosing side? Brad likely made those comments out of frustration, not from loosing but from arguing with a borderline mental handicap that lacks the ability to think with any logic or reason. So again please don't bore me with your opinion, Show some facts or shut up. Brad's right, your a whackadoodle

Brad Alexander
Posts: 71
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 10:56 am
Contact:

Re: Greed is sooooo ugly

Post by Brad Alexander »

"Litter" means all improperly discarded waste material
If I place a piece of tin in the woods in a manner such that is conducive to giving cover for a particular species, I've willfully considered many variables in order to make it the best cover I can. Such things include the placement on or near certain kinds of vegetation, rock structure, cracked soil and of proper exposure to the sun just to name a few. Giving thought to how one lays something is much different than simply tossing out "litter", which I NEVER do. It has not been improperly discarded. Some here, including the greatness himself, believes otherwise. However, this is ONLY an opinion until proven otherwise. As much as I hate to give Gerry even an inch, I still have to say that his opinion is possibly just as valid as the next guys and deserves consideration.

The problem I have is based on having such a hard stance against AC on public land without permission is just not worth all the crying and abusive/abrasive crap. It really is not that big of a deal, yet some here, especially GB, wish to make it a big deal and do everything they can to support their BELIEF.

Gerry started it off by calling people that do such activities as "slob hunters". Gerry, though loony as they come, is quite intelligent and Gerry, you knew exactly what you were saying and I believe you willfully instigated this mess to perpetuate your agenda (now you'll ask what your agenda is as if what I say has no basis, be aware I will not answer to such retarded questions).

Patrick - you are just being an impossible argumentative ****. Furthermore, I clearly was NOT making a point to suggest that a minor infraction is equal to something like murder. But I realize that you have to do what you can to twist and distort. Though I should not have to elaborate, it appears that you are too simple minded to accept the fact that my point was completely based on the idea that arguing your points in a back door fashion by introducing the legal ramifications is ridiculous. The real issue for you and others are rooted in the expectations of a utopian existence where all should be perfect and EVERYONE should have the same view as your own.

If you don't like it, can't you just let it go? So what! Every once in a blue moon you find someones boards they layed out for herps, did it ruin your day THAT much? If so, you are a sad sad person. No, you have to push your ideology on others as if it is your religion, you simply can't be expected to be kind hearted and understanding.

paalexan
Posts: 104
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 2:23 pm

Re: Greed is sooooo ugly

Post by paalexan »

Brad Alexander wrote: Patrick - you are just being an impossible argumentative ****. Furthermore, I clearly was NOT making a point to suggest that a minor infraction is equal to something like murder. But I realize that you have to do what you can to twist and distort. Though I should not have to elaborate, it appears that you are too simple minded to accept the fact that my point was completely based on the idea that arguing your points in a back door fashion by introducing the legal ramifications is ridiculous. The real issue for you and others are rooted in the expectations of a utopian existence where all should be perfect and EVERYONE should have the same view as your own.
To address your points in order:
1) To paraphrase myself, "Yes, because clearly it's impossible that anyone would actually disagree with you or value clear thinking on its own merits". :-)
2) You're right, you didn't say that minor infractions are equal to murder. But, you know what? I didn't say you did, either! My comment was intended to point out an obviously absurd result that I thought could be reached by extending your reasoning further, since you had implied that illegal acts were in some way interchangeable.
3) So, apparently your real point was that introducing legal considerations is illegitimate whenever you distrust the motives of someone with whom you are having a discussion. Well, OK, that's reasonable enough if the distrust is well-placed. However, your stated justification for that distrust was that you believe those raising legal considerations to have committed various minor infractions themselves. And... then we're right back where I said we were: you suggested that anyone who's violated one minor law cannot reasonably object when other, unrelated laws are broken.
4) See 1.

Patrick

User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2292
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:28 pm

Re: Greed is sooooo ugly

Post by gbin »

Mike Waters wrote:... please don't bore me with your opinion, Show some facts or shut up...
You're of course free to dismiss logical argument as merely opinion, Mike. And even if it upsets you, I'm of course free to continue posting either, both or other, as I see fit. Sorry if I was momentarily fooled by your previous post into thinking you might be interested in open, honest discourse, though... :?
Brad Alexander wrote:... Gerry, you knew exactly what you were saying...
Of course I did, Brad. I was describing the illegal addition of herping AC to a piece of property as no more and no less than I and many others, including the authorities, see it. I at least understand that you might have even helped the occasional herp along in life by putting out that AC, but non-herpers don't. All they see is what certainly appears even to me to be the primary motivation for such behavior: disregard for other people and for the law of the land in pursuit of selfish interests. They might well also see it as disregard for the environment, whether it is or isn't in sum. (I challenge anyone here to find an equally apt and succinct but less inflammatory term than "slob hunter" to describe all of this. If you have one, I'll readily adopt it.) And there's good reason to believe that their views of herpers have repercussions for the herping community.

Anything more or less that you might imagine is associated with my postings is, just as of course, your imagination. I certainly have my problems just as does every other participant in this forum, but whatever truly terrible or just-kind-of-bad-things you might imagine about me or anyone else who you don't actually know are clearly your problem. I can feel bad for you for having said problem, but beyond making what I view as a reasonable effort to explain myself to you so that your imagination has less chance to run amok, I'm not going to try to fix it for you. Your problems are really up to you to resolve, just as my problems are mine to resolve.

Patrick can speak for himself, but for myself I'll say that I can't even really imagine a truly utopian existence, let alone expect such. I do hope for people (including myself) to always include among their motivations a desire to do the right thing, though, and to try to improve rather than worsen matters overall for themselves and others. And I reserve the right to hold onto and even fight for that hope no matter how many or how often people (including myself, sometimes) disappoint it. I wouldn't say it's my religion, no, but maybe it's my spirituality? More likely it's just my activist nature; I have a really hard time "just letting [anything] go" - and yeah, I reckon that's one of my problems. ;)

So I wonder, if we went through this thread and counted, how many people who started out on the side of putting out their own AC on property that isn't theirs have bothered to comment on Chris, Fundad and ICH's legal versions of the same activity? How many have even bothered to think about it? "If the (slob hunter's boot) fits..."

Gerry

P.S. I love the beautiful photographs that you post to this website, Brad. :thumb:

paalexan
Posts: 104
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 2:23 pm

Re: Greed is sooooo ugly

Post by paalexan »

Aaron wrote:Patrick, I think the problem might be that I tend to speak very literally. When I said "about the only damage boardlines make is to the sensibilities", I really meant "about". As in there is some damage other than that to the sensibilities but due to the nature of boardlines only covering a tiny fraction of a percent of whaterver larger continous area they are placed in, the actual damage to habitat is minute. I did not say there was no damage but you right away hauled of and called me myopic. Then rather than actually attempt to describe any specific damage you thought was occuring you simply made vague and ominous references to some unknown damge that I was overlooking that may or may not be vast. Or you made wierd comparision(bulldozing and buring my boardlines?) that seemed to have no relevance to me, so I did not take them seriously.


You're getting a lot of mileage out of that "about". Who knew that there was a whole argument about square footage hidden in there? :-)

OK, I'll play the "Quote it again, Sam!" game:
Gerry I have to say I think it's way off base to compare laying AC out to habitat damage. Just because they are both against the law doesn't mean they are equally harmful. About the only thing AC might harm is the sensibilities of a few of the people who happen to stumble upon it and it doesn't harm the herps at all. Habitat damage not only offends the sensibilities but, IMHO, it has potential to harm individual herps as well. I also think it may reduce the carrying capacity of some locations.
The attitude I called "myopic" is there throughout, but most obvious in that second to last sentence:
Habitat damage not only offends the sensibilities but, IMHO, it has potential to harm individual herps as well.
So, habitat damage is something that harms herps. That seems like a pretty narrow view of the situation. And so I said so.

I think that's as clear as I can make it, so feel no need for further clarification...

Patrick

Brad Alexander
Posts: 71
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 10:56 am
Contact:

Re: Greed is sooooo ugly

Post by Brad Alexander »

Patty -

1. twisted, you're dumb
2. twisted again, you're still dumb
3. twisted even more, and guess what?
4. see 1 - 3


GB -

Poor fellow, you're mommy was too hard on you I guess.

I imagine that you have more serious issues then you are willing to admit. However, at least you are giving me a good laugh.

Here's a thought - if you have such a huge problem with herpers putting out board lines and people running amok on private and public land, you could always get off your A$$ and do something real about it instead of crying on these forums and calling people slobs. Why don't you try starting a movement that would include working hard towards cleaning up all these horrific board lines?

You are clearly a disturbed person, hell bent on controlling other people and what they do no matter how minor. I have zero faith that you will ever be a reasonable person.

If by some incredible chance you decide to come to your senses and realize how insignificant your grumbling is, by all means, let us know.

One last thing for you GB - wackadoodle!
-----------------------------

For all of those considering putting out AC. Please do not let these arrogant and elitists downers stop you. Be reasonably respectful and pick up after yourself when you are done.

User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2292
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:28 pm

Re: Greed is sooooo ugly

Post by gbin »

gbin wrote:So I wonder, if we went through this thread and counted, how many people who started out on the side of putting out their own AC on property that isn't theirs have bothered to comment on Chris, Fundad and ICH's legal versions of the same activity? How many have even bothered to think about it? "If the (slob hunter's boot) fits..."
I haven't gone back through the thread and checked, but I think it's probably a pretty safe bet that Brad is one of those who is pretending that Chris, Fundad and ICH's approach was never mentioned... :lol:

Gerry

Brad Alexander
Posts: 71
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 10:56 am
Contact:

Re: Greed is sooooo ugly

Post by Brad Alexander »

gbin wrote:
gbin wrote:So I wonder, if we went through this thread and counted, how many people who started out on the side of putting out their own AC on property that isn't theirs have bothered to comment on Chris, Fundad and ICH's legal versions of the same activity? How many have even bothered to think about it? "If the (slob hunter's boot) fits..."
I haven't gone back through the thread and checked, but I think it's probably a pretty safe bet that Brad is one of those who is pretending that Chris, Fundad and ICH's approach was never mentioned... :lol:

Gerry
Wackadoodle!

User avatar
Mike Waters
Posts: 835
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:37 am
Location: Bakersfield CA

Re: Greed is sooooo ugly

Post by Mike Waters »

Gerry, my initial post was asking the Legal issue of laying boards. I can go back 6 pages and reread your opinion had your opinion be my interest. It seems your only agenda at this point is to prevoke argument. Otherwise you wouldn't have responded to my post unless you were interested in getting to the facts. Yes your interpretation of the law is accurate however laws can be interpreted to work in your favor. As the law is written, based in what Daryl posted, it seems that laying out boards for the use of artifici habitat is not technically illegal. Given the chance that law enforcement walked up while you were placing boards on blm land you would likely get a ticket. Now if you contested it in court I think you would win. it may not be worth the hassle but my question is, is it legal.

Yes your right, to non herpers and hikers boards are trash. As cell phone and radio towers are scrap to those who don't use cell or own a radio. Never the less they are there for a purpose. Rafters irritate the trout fisherman and vice versa but each have there place and rights in the outdoors. People may not like what we do but if we are within our rights then those people can suck it.

Brad Alexander
Posts: 71
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 10:56 am
Contact:

Re: Greed is sooooo ugly

Post by Brad Alexander »

Mike Waters wrote:Yes your interpretation of the law is accurate however laws can be interpreted to work in your favor. As the law is written, based in what Daryl posted, it seems that laying out boards for the use of artifici habitat is not technically illegal. Given the chance that law enforcement walked up while you were placing boards on blm land you would likely get a ticket. Now if you contested it in court I think you would win. it may not be worth the hassle but my question is, is it legal.
I disagree on a few points, however, you have some great analogies there.

GB's interpretation is not necessarily accurate. It is only HIS interpretation.

I doubt seriously you would be cited for laying out AC had a Law Enforcement officer come walking up on you (anyone can argue this, and I'm sure the great wackadoodle will do so, but it is my opinion and I believe it to be valid).

I do agree that if he actual did cite you, you could easily contest it in court and win.

User avatar
Daryl Eby
Posts: 963
Joined: June 27th, 2010, 12:27 pm
Location: Terlingua / Marfa, Texas
Contact:

Re: Greed is sooooo ugly

Post by Daryl Eby »

Geesh! So much vitriol, so little legitimate debate. After all this name calling, it still boils down to just a few basic points. Obviously, these points don't all carry equal weight and some may be completely invalid or irrelevant. I've tried to recall all the points that have been made (whether I agree with them or not) and have added a few.

PRO placing AC with out permission:
  • * Improves habitat if properly placed.
    * Protects habitat by focusing herping behaviors on the AC instead of tearing up natural cover.
    * It's public land and herpers are members of the public. Fair use.
    * Nobody is ever likely to see it (no harm no foul).
    * Organic based AC such as boards are just biodegradable biomass. Just sending my boards home (great line).
    * Requesting permission would increase suspicion that non-permitted cover (and litter in general) was left by herpers.
CON placing AC with out permission:
  • * Violates rights of the property owner.
    * Disrespectful of other land users.
    * Violates litter laws and regulations in most (?) instances (unless you buy Brad's creative argument about "properly placing" vs "improperly discarding" - I'd love to hear that in court).
    * Contributes to negative stereotypes against herpers -even against those that don't use AC.
    * Looks bad.
    * Destroys some habitat and harms some organisms (admittedly a very small impact).
    * Requesting permission would improve relations with land owners, land manager, and LE.
    * Requesting permission would compel herpers to put more thought and planning into AC placement.
Sideline Points (not necessarily relevant to Pro or Con permission)
  • * Labeling board lines (much like jug line fishing) would promote responsible use and avoid misinterpretation of our actions.
    * Picking up trash while herping (especially while placing or using board lines) would improve the habitat and the reputation of herpers.
    * Lots (likely most) AC is not placed by herpers, but merely rearranged into a more useful configuration.
I'm sure I missed some points that have been raised, and there are certainly many other points on both sides. Feel free to add or subtract from this list. Or, if you prefer, you can just call me a wackadoodle, a slob, or whatever other insult you like.

Looking over what has been discussed so far, I'd find it very hard to argue in favor of placing AC without permission. However, given the right circumstances, I could certainly see myself covertly laying out some AC. Hey, just because I have high ideals, doesn't mean I have always or will always live up to them. I certainly won't be calling anyone a "slob" for doing something I might consider myself. Of course, I'm also unlikely to call someone a "wackadoodle" for questioning my behavior.

Brad Alexander
Posts: 71
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 10:56 am
Contact:

Re: Greed is sooooo ugly

Post by Brad Alexander »

You forgot a point Daryl -

It's just not that important enough to worry about! Which has been my main focus the entire time. The majority of the cons are based on something that actually matters when this issue is not worthy. Your point number 1 under Cons is the only one worthy. However, if I had a chunk of land in downtown wherever, and I found that someone had put a couple of boards on it and where checking for snakes on occasion, I wouldn't blow it of proportion. If the land is not being used, no harm no foul. I realize that many, maybe even most, may not see it that way. However, if they are that concerned they can fence it off, which is really the only way that your personal property is not going to be violated. Of the countless violations against someone's property, placing a few boards on it and checking for snakes on occasion ranks pretty damn low. So although YES, it is a violation to the property owner, I do not think it is a huge deal. For the most part (but not completely), I do not condone the placement of AC on personal property without permission.

User avatar
Daryl Eby
Posts: 963
Joined: June 27th, 2010, 12:27 pm
Location: Terlingua / Marfa, Texas
Contact:

Re: Greed is sooooo ugly

Post by Daryl Eby »

Mike Waters wrote:... As the law is written, based in what Daryl posted, it seems that laying out boards for the use of artifici habitat is not technically illegal. Given the chance that law enforcement walked up while you were placing boards on blm land you would likely get a ticket. Now if you contested it in court I think you would win. it may not be worth the hassle but my question is, is it legal.
Brad Alexander wrote:I doubt seriously you would be cited for laying out AC had a Law Enforcement officer come walking up on you.

I do agree that if he actual did cite you, you could easily contest it in court and win.
I have to disagree with y'alls interpretation of the statute I posted (and keep in mind it is only a single statute and likely not the most relevant one to our discussion). I would bet that law enforcement, judges, and property owners would consider cover boards to be "improperly discarded waste material". Just because you placed it carefully and with purposeful intent doesn't mean doing so is "proper". Similarly, just because it still serves a purpose (for you and the herps) doesn't mean it is not waste material. Imagine if a large construction contractor decided to use all their scrap lumber to "create habitat" in a national forest. If you can lay down ten boards, why can't they purposefully distribute ten thousand?

User avatar
Daryl Eby
Posts: 963
Joined: June 27th, 2010, 12:27 pm
Location: Terlingua / Marfa, Texas
Contact:

Re: Greed is sooooo ugly

Post by Daryl Eby »

Brad Alexander wrote:Of the countless violations against someone's property, placing a few boards on it and checking for snakes on occasion ranks pretty damn low. So although YES, it is a violation to the property owner, I do not think it is a huge deal.
I can agree with that. Let's just hope the property owner agrees with us. :beer:

Brad Alexander
Posts: 71
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 10:56 am
Contact:

Re: Greed is sooooo ugly

Post by Brad Alexander »

Daryl Eby wrote: I have to disagree with y'all interpretation of the statute I posted (and keep in mind it is only a single statute and likely not the most relevant one to our discussion). I would bet that law enforcement, judges, and property owners would consider cover boards to be "improperly discarded waste material". Just because you placed it carefully and with purposeful intent doesn't mean doing so is "proper". Similarly, just because it still serves a purpose (for you and the herps) doesn't mean it is not waste material. Imagine if a large construction contractor decided to use all their scrap lumber to "create habitat" in a national forest. If you can lay down ten boards, why can't they purposefully distribute ten thousand?
Then we will agree to disagree (not in regard to private land, but public). Furthermore, your analogy is extreme and I do feel that it would most assuredly be treated differently.
I can agree with that. Let's just hope the property owner agrees with us. :beer:
They do not have to agree with us. They should be allowed to deal with us sternly should they choose. But then, my issue is not directed towards placement on private land, even though I do think there are instances where I wouldn't have a problem with it.

User avatar
Daryl Eby
Posts: 963
Joined: June 27th, 2010, 12:27 pm
Location: Terlingua / Marfa, Texas
Contact:

Re: Greed is sooooo ugly

Post by Daryl Eby »

Brad Alexander wrote:Furthermore, your analogy is extreme and I do feel that it would most assuredly be treated differently.
Yes, the analogy was extreme. That was on purpose in order to demonstrate the point. Of course, placing a few boards would (and should) be treated differently than placing countless truckloads. Much like throwing a half eaten bag of fast food out the window would be treated differently than a restaurant dumping all their garbage in a national park. Though the two are vastly different in degree, both could be prosecuted under the same laws. Your point is correct though that the lesser offenses could be dismissed (or at most result in only minor fines) while the greater offenses would be punished severely.

Brad Alexander
Posts: 71
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 10:56 am
Contact:

Re: Greed is sooooo ugly

Post by Brad Alexander »

Daryl, have you been down in the Terlingua area? How things looking? Are you guys getting any rain out of Alex?

User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2292
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:28 pm

Re: Greed is sooooo ugly

Post by gbin »

It's funny how some people can persuade themselves that something isn't wrong, just because they want to do it and it's not as big a wrong as other things they see.

It's funny too how they can pretend that right ways to do essentially the same thing don't exist, even when others have shown these ways to them, just because they don't want to make the required effort or - gasp! - risk being told that they can't do something that they want to do.

Or maybe "pathetic" is a more accurate word to describe it than "funny"...
Daryl Eby wrote:... the lesser offenses could be dismissed (or at most result in only minor fines) while the greater offenses would be punished severely.
And, of course, even lesser offenses by individual herpers could work against the herp community as a whole, given the negative view many in authority now have against herpers, anyway.

Gerry

User avatar
Daryl Eby
Posts: 963
Joined: June 27th, 2010, 12:27 pm
Location: Terlingua / Marfa, Texas
Contact:

Re: Greed is sooooo ugly

Post by Daryl Eby »

Brad Alexander wrote:Daryl, have you been down in the Terlingua area? How things looking? Are you guys getting any rain out of Alex?
We've been getting a wonderful, slow, soaking drizzle and occasional short periods of heavy rain for couple of days. We appear to be at the edge. North and east of here has received much more. West has received somewhat less.

This should set us up for a very good close to the season and improve survival rates of this years offspring. Of course, the only things likely to be moving until the rain stops and dries out for a couple of days are amphib and the snakes that prey on them.

You planning another trip down this way? I'd love to meet up for some herping. I'll be down here about another week, then up in Marfa for a few weeks.

Brad Alexander
Posts: 71
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 10:56 am
Contact:

Re: Greed is sooooo ugly

Post by Brad Alexander »

What is even MORE funny is how some people think they are so great, when really, they are just wackadoodle. :lol:

User avatar
Mike Waters
Posts: 835
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:37 am
Location: Bakersfield CA

Re: Greed is sooooo ugly

Post by Mike Waters »

Brad Alexander wrote:What is even MORE funny is how some people think they are so great, when really, they are just wackadoodle. :lol:
I second that

Aaron
Posts: 287
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:46 pm

Re: Greed is sooooo ugly

Post by Aaron »

Patrick nothing I said excludes the possibility that things other than herps could be harmed. All my statements tried to say was that herps are more harmed by habitat damage like rock breaking and bark peeling, it in no way implies they are the only thing that could be harmed. Besides the intent was to show that catagorically speaking, where habitat damage is concerned, rock breaking and bark peeling is not even in the same catagory as boardlines. Maybe it was my fault but the way I read Gerry's statement I took it to mean breaking rocks and peeling bark is no more harmful in the public's eye, than setting up a boardline. It was a simple comparision, made because I think the public should be much more concerned about rock damage and bark peeling, not a comprehensive review of every possible thing down to the microbe that could be affected by boardlines. If you thought there was some significant thing(s) I was missing it would have been much more polite to make a case with examples, etc. rathar than call me names. What that feels like is you're putting me in a catagory where I am not even worth explaining things to or discussing things with. All you did is call me names, talk down to me and try to get my goat, that's the way I saw it.

For what it's worth I do cringe everytime I see somebody post about setting up boardlines. It's not because I think boardlines case any significant harm, it's simply because I do think it looks bad to the public. Obviously tresspassing is illegal but I am not 100% sure it's illegal to set up a boardline in say national forest. I think it's a gray area and I felt it was important to point out that the boardlines themselves are probably not causing any significant changes to the habitats in which they are placed. Another area where I really have no problem with people setting up boardlines is on untended, unfenced private property that is slated for development and this probably describes 90% or more of the boardlines I am familiar with in California. Such areas are frequently used by the public for dog walking, mountain bike riding, walking, jogging, occasionally riding horses and kids set up forts, jumps for dirtbikes, paintball courses, etc. in these areas all the time. I don't like it when people get in these theoretical arguements and hold herpers to standards way higher than the rest of society is held to. If you've got some specific examples or even theoretical examples of actually significant harm being caused by boardlines I wouldn't mind hearing them. Not just you crushed a microbe or smashed a patch of grass, unless that is actually some rare thing in need of protection. I don't like is vague statements that seem designed to exaggerate or dramatize with the interntion of making me look like an idiot, simply put.

paalexan
Posts: 104
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 2:23 pm

Re: Greed is sooooo ugly

Post by paalexan »

Daryl Eby wrote:PRO placing AC with out permission:
  • * Improves habitat if properly placed.
CON placing AC with out permission:
  • * Destroys some habitat and harms some organisms (admittedly a very small impact).
You stuck all your qualifiers on the wrong one. :-)

Any improvement in habitat for specific herps is pretty speculative; destruction of habitat for some non-herps (I'm thinking mostly of plants, of course) is pretty unambiguous. The question, in my mind, is not whether placing AC involves habitat destruction, but whether that destruction is of a magnitude sufficient to offset the gains (a point on which I haven't and don't really intend to offer an opinion :-) ). IMO, the only thing that should be on your "pro" list is "Makes some herps easier to find." Let's face it, that's why people do it, and that's really the only reason people do it. That doesn't make it wrong, it's just the reality of the situation.

Patrick

paalexan
Posts: 104
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 2:23 pm

Re: Greed is sooooo ugly

Post by paalexan »

Mike Waters wrote:
Brad Alexander wrote:What is even MORE funny is how some people think they are so great, when really, they are just wackadoodle. :lol:
I second that
I third it. :-)

Patrick

Aaron
Posts: 287
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:46 pm

Re: Greed is sooooo ugly

Post by Aaron »

It's funny how some people can persuade themselves that something isn't wrong, just because they want to do it and it's not as big a wrong as other things they see.
It's also funny how some people seem to have an odd tendency to form fixations on the most absurdly minor of issues and keep hammering away at it in a vain attempt to make everybody as concerned with it as they are. I just have this awesome vision right now of earthquakes, thunder, lightning, explosions, lasers, zombies and teradactyls going off in the backround as a certain somebody types away at the keyboard. Crash, boom, urrrrrgh*, kee-haw**(clickity, clickity, clickity...)!

* Zombie noise.
** Teradactyl noise.

In all seriousness I would have to agree that posting about setting up boardlines is bad public relations and should not be done. All it does is feed unwarranted controversy, IMHO. In practice though, I think boardlines are, in the vast majority of situations, harmless to the environment and habitat and I therefore feel I have little to get upset about or concern myself with regarding them. It does not bother or worry me if I stumble upon one or to know that people are setting them up.

paalexan
Posts: 104
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 2:23 pm

Re: Greed is sooooo ugly

Post by paalexan »

Aaron wrote:Patrick nothing I said excludes the possibility that things other than herps could be harmed. All my statements tried to say was that herps are more harmed by habitat damage like rock breaking and bark peeling, it in no way implies they are the only thing that could be harmed. Besides the intent was to show that catagorically speaking, where habitat damage is concerned, rock breaking and bark peeling is not even in the same catagory as boardlines. Maybe it was my fault but the way I read Gerry's statement I took it to mean breaking rocks and peeling bark is no more harmful in the public's eye, than setting up a boardline. It was a simple comparision, made because I think the public should be much more concerned about rock damage and bark peeling, not a comprehensive review of every possible thing down to the microbe that could be affected by boardlines. If you thought there was some significant thing(s) I was missing it would have been much more polite to make a case with examples, etc. rathar than call me names. What that feels like is you're putting me in a catagory where I am not even worth explaining things to or discussing things with. All you did is call me names, talk down to me and try to get my goat, that's the way I saw it.
Christ. I thought you expressed a narrow viewpoint, I said so. That really is it.

I'm not sure why you're fixated on this absurdly minor issue, and keep hammering away at it. :-)
I don't like it when people get in these theoretical arguements and hold herpers to standards way higher than the rest of society is held to. If you've got some specific examples or even theoretical examples of actually significant harm being caused by boardlines I wouldn't mind hearing them. Not just you crushed a microbe or smashed a patch of grass, unless that is actually some rare thing in need of protection. I don't like is vague statements that seem designed to exaggerate or dramatize with the interntion of making me look like an idiot, simply put.
OK, I like abstraction; you don't and think it is vague or intended to make you look stupid.

So, here's why I like abstraction: I think it's very common for people to have some conclusion in mind, and then create some kind of argument to support it. The argument adopted isn't chosen because it's good reasoning or makes sense, but because it leads to the desired conclusion. In psychology you'd call that rationalization; and whatever you call it, it is, IMO, one of the most prevalent causes of bad reasoning and irrationality. If you want to avoid that pitfall, the simplest approach is to remove the reasoning used from the specific details of its context. Does it lead to obviously wrong conclusions when applied in other contexts, or when applied from a different point of view within the same context? Does it lead to self-contradiction? More generally, does this reasoning make sense apart from the particular use to which I'm putting it? If it doesn't, it should be abandoned, whether it happens to lead in this particular case to a conclusion you like, or not. My comments on this thread, and on many similar threads, are dedicated in large part to exploring whether the reasoning used is or is not valid & sound--not to advocating a particular viewpoint.

Returning briefly to the specific case. Suppose someone goes out and kills a few Lampropeltis zonata just as an afternoon's entertainment. There seems to be general (but not universal) agreement on the forum that these snakes are not rare, and not in need of protection. So, has this hypothetical person done any harm? Well, if you're a herper, you'll probably say "Yes!" If you're an average member of the public, you'll probably say either "No!" or "Who cares?" Whether you judge an action to constitute harm depends a lot on your personal priorities and point of view. OK, you don't value plants unless they're rare. From a botanist's point of view, you're like the average guy who doesn't give a damn about herps. That doesn't mean you're wrong, it just means your personal viewpoint about what constitutes harm is neither unbiased nor universally applicable.

Now, as it would happen, there are a number of rare plants in areas that herpers frequent out in California. Just in the genus I study (Boechera) there is one known only from a few sites in chaparral & grassland in San Diego & western Riverside counties & a couple known only from a few areas of exposed rock in the Sierra Nevada. The number of herpers in CA who are aware of these specific plants or would hesitate a second before squashing any of them while flipping rocks or placing AC is probably 0.

Patrick

User avatar
Daryl Eby
Posts: 963
Joined: June 27th, 2010, 12:27 pm
Location: Terlingua / Marfa, Texas
Contact:

Re: Greed is sooooo ugly

Post by Daryl Eby »

paalexan wrote:
Daryl Eby wrote:PRO placing AC with out permission:
  • * Improves habitat if properly placed.
CON placing AC with out permission:
  • * Destroys some habitat and harms some organisms (admittedly a very small impact).
You stuck all your qualifiers on the wrong one. :-)

Any improvement in habitat for specific herps is pretty speculative; destruction of habitat for some non-herps (I'm thinking mostly of plants, of course) is pretty unambiguous. The question, in my mind, is not whether placing AC involves habitat destruction, but whether that destruction is of a magnitude sufficient to offset the gains (a point on which I haven't and don't really intend to offer an opinion :-) ).
You're right that I should have qualified both, especially since the "benefits" of AC are constantly debated here. Keep in mind though that my pro and con lists were just a summary of points that have been made. I obviously agree with some, disagree with others, and am uncertain on the rest.
IMO, the only thing that should be on your "pro" list is "Makes some herps easier to find." Let's face it, that's why people do it, and that's really the only reason people do it. That doesn't make it wrong, it's just the reality of the situation.
Making things easier to find is certainly the driving reason behind placing AC. However, that is irrelevant to the "with or with out permission" issue, which is the main debate here. Of course, I could have added, "Not asking permission is easier than asking permission." The boards themselves will be just as effective either way.

paalexan
Posts: 104
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 2:23 pm

Re: Greed is sooooo ugly

Post by paalexan »

Daryl Eby wrote:
paalexan wrote:
Daryl Eby wrote:PRO placing AC with out permission:
  • * Improves habitat if properly placed.
CON placing AC with out permission:
  • * Destroys some habitat and harms some organisms (admittedly a very small impact).
You stuck all your qualifiers on the wrong one. :-)

Any improvement in habitat for specific herps is pretty speculative; destruction of habitat for some non-herps (I'm thinking mostly of plants, of course) is pretty unambiguous. The question, in my mind, is not whether placing AC involves habitat destruction, but whether that destruction is of a magnitude sufficient to offset the gains (a point on which I haven't and don't really intend to offer an opinion :-) ).
You're right that I should have qualified both, especially since the "benefits" of AC are constantly debated here. Keep in mind though that my pro and con lists were just a summary of points that have been made. I obviously agree with some, disagree with others, and am uncertain on the rest.
Understood.
IMO, the only thing that should be on your "pro" list is "Makes some herps easier to find." Let's face it, that's why people do it, and that's really the only reason people do it. That doesn't make it wrong, it's just the reality of the situation.
Making things easier to find is certainly the driving reason behind placing AC. However, that is irrelevant to the "with or with out permission" issue, which is the main debate here. Of course, I could have added, "Not asking permission is easier than asking permission." The boards themselves will be just as effective either way.
Good point. We could always invoke an aphorism of my former boss: "It's easier to ask forgiveness than permission." :-)

In the context of this thread, it is interesting to note that we have both people arguing that placing boardlines is perfectly in accord with the rules of the Forest Service & al., and people arguing that asking permission would never work...

Patrick

paalexan
Posts: 104
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 2:23 pm

Re: Greed is sooooo ugly

Post by paalexan »

Brad Alexander wrote:Patty -

1. twisted, you're dumb
2. twisted again, you're still dumb
3. twisted even more, and guess what?
4. see 1 - 3
Don't worry, Brad, I still like you. I hope you'll forgive my enjoyment of discussions of inconsequential issues. :-)

Brad Alexander
Posts: 71
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 10:56 am
Contact:

Re: Greed is sooooo ugly

Post by Brad Alexander »

Though I see no need for forgiveness here, I always forgive.

AND!!! Obviously I know you are not dumb. That is simply me enjoying a childish behavior based upon the craziness I see in this thread.

User avatar
Mike Waters
Posts: 835
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:37 am
Location: Bakersfield CA

Re: Greed is sooooo ugly

Post by Mike Waters »

Patrick, I hope your not crying about some invasive grass being trampled in deployment of board lines. As far as boards mainly making it easier to find herps you are most certainly correct. That is why conservancy's allow nafha to put board lines on there property. Because boards assist herpers in the collection of data which is what this is about. Right? So unless otherwise proven illegal there really can't be anything wrong with it. IMO. But this plant destruction stuff, if that continues you will be whackadoodle as well :lol:

paalexan
Posts: 104
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 2:23 pm

Re: Greed is sooooo ugly

Post by paalexan »

Brad Alexander wrote:Though I see no need for forgiveness here, I always forgive.

AND!!! Obviously I know you are not dumb. That is simply me enjoying a childish behavior based upon the craziness I see in this thread.
Aw. Group hug! :-)

paalexan
Posts: 104
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 2:23 pm

Re: Greed is sooooo ugly

Post by paalexan »

Mike Waters wrote:Patrick, I hope your not crying about some invasive grass being trampled in deployment of board lines.


I do believe you are the first to mention invasive grasses in this thread (we do have at least one prior mention of "grasses", but of course not all are invasive).
As far as boards mainly making it easier to find herps you are most certainly correct. That is why conservancy's allow nafha to put board lines on there property. Because boards assist herpers in the collection of data which is what this is about. Right? So unless otherwise proven illegal there really can't be anything wrong with it.
If you've got permission from the landowners, I think you're in the position that we all agree is perfectly legal.
IMO. But this plant destruction stuff, if that continues you will be whackadoodle as well :lol:
Do I have to say something about myopia again? 'Cause I'll do it! :-)

Patrick

User avatar
Daryl Eby
Posts: 963
Joined: June 27th, 2010, 12:27 pm
Location: Terlingua / Marfa, Texas
Contact:

Re: Greed is sooooo ugly

Post by Daryl Eby »

Mike Waters wrote:Patrick, I hope your not crying about some invasive grass being trampled in deployment of board lines. ... But this plant destruction stuff, if that continues you will be whackadoodle as well :lol:
Did you miss this comment from Patrick?
Now, as it would happen, there are a number of rare plants in areas that herpers frequent out in California. Just in the genus I study (Boechera) there is one known only from a few sites in chaparral & grassland in San Diego & western Riverside counties & a couple known only from a few areas of exposed rock in the Sierra Nevada. The number of herpers in CA who are aware of these specific plants or would hesitate a second before squashing any of them while flipping rocks or placing AC is probably 0.
Also, he already acknowledge that actual harm from board lines is likely very minimal. Heck, all the impacts mentioned by both sides are minimal. The only major impacts seem to be to the emotions (real or contrived) of some members here.

Aaron
Posts: 287
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:46 pm

Re: Greed is sooooo ugly

Post by Aaron »

Ok Partick good points but there were some problems with the way you initially presented it, IMHO. Your comparision to bulldozing and setting boarlines on fire was not at all analogous in a purely mathematical sense. You were comparing boardlines which cover and hence directly "destroy" only a tiny fraction of the habitat they are in, with rounding up and burning, hence directly "destroying", 100% of somebodies boards. As I pointed out, a mathematically accurate analogy would have involved "desrtuction" in equal poportions, not "destroying" a fraction of a percent of one and 100% of the other.

It was not emotion or a fondness for herping that caused me to conclude boardlines are harmless to the environment in most cases. It was simple mathematics alone. Since one can define any parcel of habitat in which boards may be placed and roughly the perimmiters of where that habitat becomes discontinuous, you can subract from it the actual area that is covered in boards. From this one can easily see that boardlines usually cover only a tiny fraction of any given area. Furthermore the boards themselves are usually spaced out far from each other so this would probably reduce the chances for all individuals of any single type of organism being disturbed. I do like abstractions and I think they are useful for the same reasons you stated but I do not think you chose an accurate one in your comparision to bulldozing and burning boardlines. I honestly thought it was so absurdly disproportionate in the mathematical sense that I concluded you must be simply trying to get my goat.

As far as killing zonata, actually as long as it can be shown mathematically that they are killing less than a fraction of a percent of the z's that are within the continuous habitat parcel that they are hunting, I would have no problem with it. In some cases the method of take alone would tell me not to worry. Becasue some methods of take are so ineffective at obtaining large percentages of the population, I would nor even need the math in order to ease my fears. As long as they found their z's "on the crawl" I probably would not worry since I know that z's spend most of their time underground and do not engage in mass migrations. But whatever, it's a hypothetical example and I'm sure at some point you could come up with some scenario in which I'd be worried.

As far as plants, or any other living thing be it beetle, moss, etc. I always make an effort to not step on anything that I percieve might be even uncommon. In other words, if I am going through a field and I see acres and acres of grass that looks to be all the same kind I don't really worry about stepping on some of it. But if I see a little plant or something that is only present as individual sprouts or patches here and there, I make every effort short of falling on my face not to step on them. I actually think most herpers do that, if they see something they percive as rare or uncommon they usually try to avoid harming it. Anytime one ventures off the pavement and into nature one has a likelihood of stepping on and harming some other living thing. It is effectivly humanly impossible to avoid. I am sure that as a plant seeker you don't worry too much when you step on common plant species' in your searches for the more rare and interesting ones.

I am well aware that there are sensitive areas where one should not place boards and in fact where one should not even set foot. I am fine with you, or anyone, pointing this out. It's just the way you did it, which seemed to me to be implying that there might be some type of wholesale destruction going on as a result of people placing boardlines.

I suppose what you may be getting at is that it's just as much a bummer for you to see a board placed on top of a rare plant as it would be for me to see a torn up rockpile? I can certainly respect that viewpoint but I think it has to be recognized that individual boards in boardlines have much less chance mathematically speaking, of being laid directly on top of a rare plant that is not otherwise well represented on that particular parcel than the chances that tearing up a rockpile has for disturbing a zonata colony. With boards it's a crapshoot and with rockpiles it's a virtual certainty. To be true the board has not much more chance of being placed on top of something rare than any 20 random footsteps have a chance of stepping on something rare. Be that as it may I can certainly respect one who advocates for not putting boards in certain sensitive habitats.

User avatar
Mike Waters
Posts: 835
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:37 am
Location: Bakersfield CA

Re: Greed is sooooo ugly

Post by Mike Waters »

Daryl you must have missed the humor intended in my post. I will follow up what is intended to be a joke with a ""jk" to avoid any confusion. As for the rare plants that may be squished by boards, if they are in an area that is good for boards then they are getting squished. After all its just. Dumb plant. Jk

User avatar
Daryl Eby
Posts: 963
Joined: June 27th, 2010, 12:27 pm
Location: Terlingua / Marfa, Texas
Contact:

Re: Greed is sooooo ugly

Post by Daryl Eby »

Mike Waters wrote:Daryl you must have missed the humor intended in my post.
Yep. I missed it. As others have said, it's easy to misinterpret comments in this stilted, one dimensional medium. Sorry.
After all its just. Dumb plant. Jk
That I get. Stupid plants! :lol:

paalexan
Posts: 104
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 2:23 pm

Re: Greed is sooooo ugly

Post by paalexan »

Aaron wrote:Ok Partick good points but there were some problems with the way you initially presented it, IMHO. Your comparision to bulldozing and setting boarlines on fire was not at all analogous in a purely mathematical sense. You were comparing boardlines which cover and hence directly "destroy" only a tiny fraction of the habitat they are in, with rounding up and burning, hence directly "destroying", 100% of somebodies boards. As I pointed out, a mathematically accurate analogy would have involved "desrtuction" in equal poportions, not "destroying" a fraction of a percent of one and 100% of the other.
I can see how you'd arrive at that conclusion, but I disagree. If modifying a certain percent of an area in one direction (placing boards) constitutes no harm, then modifying that same portion of the habitat in another direction (removing boards) should also constitute no harm. IOW, in both cases I'm looking at the area as a whole, while you're looking at it as relating to the area as a whole in the case of a herper's actions, and only in relation to the area modified by the herper in the case of our hypothetical anti-herper's actions; I don't see any particular reason for this unequal treatment. If a few 32 sq. ft. chunks are insignificant then they're insignificant, either way.
It was not emotion or a fondness for herping that caused me to conclude boardlines are harmless to the environment in most cases. It was simple mathematics alone.
That may be the case for you, but I don't think it applies generally. Considerations of what proportion of the area is affected, etc., seem to fly right out the window when someone has a particular attachment to the affected area. If the miniscule portion of the overall area happens to be "your" boardline (or "your" rock outcrop*), most herpers (as demonstrated by any number of threads on this forum, including the initial post in this thread) get pissed. Suddenly the kind of reasoning you're presenting here is no longer considered applicable.
As far as killing zonata, actually as long as it can be shown mathematically that they are killing less than a fraction of a percent of the z's that are within the continuous habitat parcel that they are hunting, I would have no problem with it. In some cases the method of take alone would tell me not to worry. Becasue some methods of take are so ineffective at obtaining large percentages of the population, I would nor even need the math in order to ease my fears. As long as they found their z's "on the crawl" I probably would not worry since I know that z's spend most of their time underground and do not engage in mass migrations. But whatever, it's a hypothetical example and I'm sure at some point you could come up with some scenario in which I'd be worried.
So, what about rattlesnake roundups? Even with the large numbers of rattlesnakes killed every year, there is apparently no threat to the common species that are the main target of these roundups (there've got to be millions of the critters... and, yes, some less common snakes are killed as well, but would it really be OK if they only targeted the common ones? not by me). Again, I've seen enough outcry over rednecks & al. killing herps on this forum to be pretty certain that your assessment that you have no problem with it if it's just a small portion of the overall population, even if it accurately applies to you, is not generally shared by forum participants.
As far as plants, or any other living thing be it beetle, moss, etc. I always make an effort to not step on anything that I percieve might be even uncommon. In other words, if I am going through a field and I see acres and acres of grass that looks to be all the same kind I don't really worry about stepping on some of it. But if I see a little plant or something that is only present as individual sprouts or patches here and there, I make every effort short of falling on my face not to step on them. I actually think most herpers do that, if they see something they percive as rare or uncommon they usually try to avoid harming it. Anytime one ventures off the pavement and into nature one has a likelihood of stepping on and harming some other living thing. It is effectivly humanly impossible to avoid. I am sure that as a plant seeker you don't worry too much when you step on common plant species' in your searches for the more rare and interesting ones.

I am well aware that there are sensitive areas where one should not place boards and in fact where one should not even set foot. I am fine with you, or anyone, pointing this out. It's just the way you did it, which seemed to me to be implying that there might be some type of wholesale destruction going on as a result of people placing boardlines.

I suppose what you may be getting at is that it's just as much a bummer for you to see a board placed on top of a rare plant as it would be for me to see a torn up rockpile? I can certainly respect that viewpoint but I think it has to be recognized that individual boards in boardlines have much less chance mathematically speaking, of being laid directly on top of a rare plant that is not otherwise well represented on that particular parcel than the chances that tearing up a rockpile has for disturbing a zonata colony. With boards it's a crapshoot and with rockpiles it's a virtual certainty. To be true the board has not much more chance of being placed on top of something rare than any 20 random footsteps have a chance of stepping on something rare. Be that as it may I can certainly respect one who advocates for not putting boards in certain sensitive habitats.
Well, one consideration here is that it is often not obvious to non-botanists (or even to botanists not familiar with a particular group of species) which are the rare plants. For instance, here's a site in San Diego County with a whole slew of narrow endemics on it:

Image

Or another site in Riverside County that has only one rare species that I know of (a tiny little bugger, somewhere near the base of that shrub at left IIRC):

Image

I'd guess that most non-botanists, though, wouldn't notice any of them unless they're producing big obvious flowers or something (if I weren't specifically looking for one of my plants at these sites, I doubt it would've occurred to me that they were particularly special). With regard to rockpiles, these have rare plants on them reasonably often (at least if you're dealing with areas of the Sierra Nevada that are monotonous forest for miles and miles and miles with just a few openings) and, again, they may not be obvious. Putting rocks back precisely may or may not prevent destruction in these cases.

However, as I stated before, I'm in general agreement with you that boardlines don't pose any particular threat to an area most of the time.

Patrick

* I'll also reiterate here that we really don't know to what extent disrupting rockpiles reduces usable habitat for rock-dwelling herps, as opposed to merely making them more difficult to find... with plants this aspect of the situation is at least simpler, since plants are stuck in one place & don't hide under things.

paalexan
Posts: 104
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 2:23 pm

Re: Greed is sooooo ugly

Post by paalexan »

Daryl Eby wrote:
Mike Waters wrote:
After all its just. Dumb plant. Jk
That I get. Stupid plants! :lol:
With all due respect, herps really don't have all that many more brain cells than plants. I like 'em, but they aren't exactly smart. :-)

Patrick

Aaron
Posts: 287
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:46 pm

Re: Greed is sooooo ugly

Post by Aaron »

I can see how you'd arrive at that conclusion, but I disagree. If modifying a certain percent of an area in one direction (placing boards) constitutes no harm, then modifying that same portion of the habitat in another direction (removing boards) should also constitute no harm. IOW, in both cases I'm looking at the area as a whole, while you're looking at it as relating to the area as a whole in the case of a herper's actions, and only in relation to the area modified by the herper in the case of our hypothetical anti-herper's actions; I don't see any particular reason for this unequal treatment. If a few 32 sq. ft. chunks are insignificant then they're insignificant, either way.
No you were not asking me what effect burning the boards would have on the habitat, you were asking me what effect burning the boards would have on me. I believe what you said was, if those boards are so insignificant then I wouldn't mind if you rounded them up and burned them. As far as the habitat is concerned I would not be troubled one bit if you removed those boards and burned them.

It still stands to reason that placing a few boards on a habitat would be no worse for that habitat than making a few tiny holes on the boards would be for those boards.

Aaron
Posts: 287
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:46 pm

Re: Greed is sooooo ugly

Post by Aaron »

That may be the case for you, but I don't think it applies generally.
Yeah but I was the one you called myopic.

User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2292
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:28 pm

Re: Greed is sooooo ugly

Post by gbin »

Aaron wrote:In all seriousness I would have to agree that posting about setting up boardlines is bad public relations and should not be done. All it does is feed unwarranted controversy, IMHO. In practice though, I think boardlines are, in the vast majority of situations, harmless to the environment and habitat...
Although I know it doesn't fit well with your caricaturization (yes, I mean that word rather than characterization) of me, Aaron, that's pretty much what I believe as well, assuming that by "setting up boardlines" you're referring to the addition of AC to property not one's own without permission. Along with Chris, I think placing AC could actually be good public relations for the herping community if done in the right way (beginning with said permission) - but I know y'all want to continue pretending that idea doesn't exist... ;)
Aaron wrote:... vague statements that seem designed to exaggerate or dramatize with the interntion of making me look like an idiot, simply put.
You mean like this?...
Aaron wrote:... I just have this awesome vision right now of earthquakes, thunder, lightning, explosions, lasers, zombies and teradactyls going off in the backround as a certain somebody types away at the keyboard. Crash, boom, urrrrrgh*, kee-haw**(clickity, clickity, clickity...)!

* Zombie noise.
** Teradactyl noise.
Oh no, I suppose that must be entirely different. :lol:

Gerry

Aaron
Posts: 287
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:46 pm

Re: Greed is sooooo ugly

Post by Aaron »

That may be the case for you, but I don't think it applies generally. Considerations of what proportion of the area is affected, etc., seem to fly right out the window when someone has a particular attachment to the affected area. If the miniscule portion of the overall area happens to be "your" boardline (or "your" rock outcrop*), most herpers (as demonstrated by any number of threads on this forum, including the initial post in this thread) get pissed. Suddenly the kind of reasoning you're presenting here is no longer considered applicable.

Well then why are you picking on me man? I'm trying not to whine but for gosh sakes I was the one arguing under the basis of a practical, mathematical approach.

User avatar
Andreas Kettenburg
Posts: 45
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:00 pm
Location: Ventura County, Ca

Re: Greed is sooooo ugly

Post by Andreas Kettenburg »

Gerry Wrote:
Don't worry, Mike, it's pretty hard even for people who actually know me to offend me, let alone folks who are essentially strangers to me except through their posts to an internet message board. I am often perplexed, though, by how ready some people here are to abandon open, honest discourse for more underhanded means of persuasion when they realize that they're on the losing side of a debate. I sometimes wonder, do these same people attempt to cheat in sporting events, in board games with children, in their school or workplace, on their spouses, etc. as well? Or do they somehow absurdly think that bad behavior here doesn't count as it would in the "real world"? Like I said, it perplexes me...

Gerry
Seriously Gerry? Laying out AC without permission could lead to cheating on one's spouses, or cheating on board games with one's own children? Not all in this life is as linear as you make it seem.

Andreas....

paalexan
Posts: 104
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 2:23 pm

Re: Greed is sooooo ugly

Post by paalexan »

Aaron wrote:
I can see how you'd arrive at that conclusion, but I disagree. If modifying a certain percent of an area in one direction (placing boards) constitutes no harm, then modifying that same portion of the habitat in another direction (removing boards) should also constitute no harm. IOW, in both cases I'm looking at the area as a whole, while you're looking at it as relating to the area as a whole in the case of a herper's actions, and only in relation to the area modified by the herper in the case of our hypothetical anti-herper's actions; I don't see any particular reason for this unequal treatment. If a few 32 sq. ft. chunks are insignificant then they're insignificant, either way.
No you were not asking me what effect burning the boards would have on the habitat, you were asking me what effect burning the boards would have on me. I believe what you said was, if those boards are so insignificant then I wouldn't mind if you rounded them up and burned them. As far as the habitat is concerned I would not be troubled one bit if you removed those boards and burned them.
In some cases herpers will mind if a few small areas are disturbed; then how can herpers argue that no one else could possibly mind if a few small areas are disturbed? If the areas we're considering are identical in the two cases, the comparison is absolutely direct.

Now, I see where you're going with distinguishing between effects on habitat and effects on people's interests; but, in practice, we only care about effects on habitat if... well... we care about them; i.e., if they are relevant in some way to our interests.

Patrick

User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2292
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:28 pm

Re: Greed is sooooo ugly

Post by gbin »

Andreas Kettenburg wrote:Seriously Gerry? Laying out AC without permission could lead to cheating on one's spouses, or cheating on board games with one's own children?...
As I advised Fundad earlier in this thread, Andreas, try reading what I wrote again and see if maybe you can understand it better this time. (Hint: The paragraph you're reacting to doesn't say anything at all about "laying out AC," nor does it say anything at all about one form of misbehavior causing another.) Don't give up, I'm sure you can get it if you try hard enough! :thumb:

Gerry

P.S. Wow... :crazyeyes:

paalexan
Posts: 104
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 2:23 pm

Re: Greed is sooooo ugly

Post by paalexan »

Aaron wrote:
That may be the case for you, but I don't think it applies generally. Considerations of what proportion of the area is affected, etc., seem to fly right out the window when someone has a particular attachment to the affected area. If the miniscule portion of the overall area happens to be "your" boardline (or "your" rock outcrop*), most herpers (as demonstrated by any number of threads on this forum, including the initial post in this thread) get pissed. Suddenly the kind of reasoning you're presenting here is no longer considered applicable.
Well then why are you picking on me man? I'm trying not to whine but for gosh sakes I was the one arguing under the basis of a practical, mathematical approach.
I'm responding to you because you're the one who made the post I'm responding to. :-)

The earlier comment on myopia was, BTW, in direct response to your statements as well. Not, of course, that you're the only one to which that comment could apply; your post just happened to be the one that caught my eye. But, really, let's not drag that out again...

Patrick

User avatar
Mike Waters
Posts: 835
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:37 am
Location: Bakersfield CA

Re: Greed is sooooo ugly

Post by Mike Waters »

gbin wrote:
Andreas Kettenburg wrote:Seriously Gerry? Laying out AC without permission could lead to cheating on one's spouses, or cheating on board games with one's own children?...
As I advised Fundad earlier in this thread, Andreas, try reading what I wrote again and see if maybe you can understand it better this time. (Hint: The paragraph you're reacting to doesn't say anything at all about "laying out AC," nor does it say anything at all about one form of misbehavior causing another.) Don't give up, I'm sure you can get it if you try hard enough! :thumb:

Gerry

P.S. Wow... :crazyeyes:

Gerry for as smart as you are you can be pretty dumb.
What else cold you have meant by that comment. I think Brad may have the. Right idea about you.

User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2292
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:28 pm

Re: Greed is sooooo ugly

Post by gbin »

Mike Waters wrote:
gbin wrote:
Andreas Kettenburg wrote:Seriously Gerry? Laying out AC without permission could lead to cheating on one's spouses, or cheating on board games with one's own children?...
As I advised Fundad earlier in this thread, Andreas, try reading what I wrote again and see if maybe you can understand it better this time. (Hint: The paragraph you're reacting to doesn't say anything at all about "laying out AC," nor does it say anything at all about one form of misbehavior causing another.) Don't give up, I'm sure you can get it if you try hard enough! :thumb:

Gerry

P.S. Wow... :crazyeyes:
Gerry for as smart as you are you can be pretty dumb.
What else cold you have meant by that comment. I think Brad may have the. Right idea about you.
Ibidem.

Keep working on those reading skills, guys! I'm rooting for you! :thumb:

:crazyeyes:

Gerry

User avatar
Andreas Kettenburg
Posts: 45
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:00 pm
Location: Ventura County, Ca

Re: Greed is sooooo ugly

Post by Andreas Kettenburg »

Gerry Wrote:
Andreas Kettenburg wrote:
Seriously Gerry? Laying out AC without permission could lead to cheating on one's spouses, or cheating on board games with one's own children?...

As I advised Fundad earlier in this thread, Andreas, try reading what I wrote again and see if maybe you can understand it better this time. (Hint: The paragraph you're reacting to doesn't say anything at all about "laying out AC," nor does it say anything at all about one form of misbehavior causing another.) Don't give up, I'm sure you can get it if you try hard enough!

Gerry

P.S. Wow...
I think I got Gerry. "When they realize that they're on the losing side of a debate", as I clearly am, now my own form of misbehavior, eg. "losing this deabte" could lead to me cheating on board games with my kids, OR cheating on my spouse.

Sorry for the confusion, now this all makes sense.

Andreas.....

Post Reply