|
Post by Russ Koon on Jan 18, 2007 12:18:04 GMT -5
IMO, the only advantage to such organizing would be the voice in the political arena. We can do everything else now just about as effectively as we could if we were an official organization.
It would be great to have another organization to choose from for those of us who have our disagreements with the existing ones, for sure.
If it does come to pass, I would suggest that the organization not take votes on issues and then take official stances on those issues based on the votes. Much better to take the votes and report the vote totals on the issues to the DNR or the legislature or wherever, without making the majority stance the official stance of the organization. I suspect the remaining members of some other organizations in the state could offer some supporting advice on that matter.
I would also debate the need for the restricted access site to accompany the open one. I still feel that the IBA erred in taking that route. There was a problem with the site they were on being overrun with name-calling and argument taken way beyond reasoned debate, to the extremes of verbal abuse. However, taking the organization business to a private site to avoid the mess was tossing the baby out with the bathwater, in my view. Tighter control of the abuses was a preferable answer. That solution never got the opportunity it deserved, probably mostly as a result of that site being a state forum on a national site, without the proper authority of a moderator for controlling the problem, until after it was too well ingrained. Balloting could probably be handled by some sort of electronic exclusion, and if not, we could mail in our votes on issues and elections.
I do like the idea of cyber-organizations, in general. The only thing that would make the standard face-to-face, attendance-required meetings any more outdated than they already are is if we were required to travel to them on horseback.
I'll still be contacting my reps whether or not I'm a member of any organization, and I suggest you all do the same. An organization such as the one suggested would give us an additional voice, and as long as the organization refrained from taking majority stances as being organizational stances, it would only be further representation on top of what we have now, regardless of whether our position on the issue at hand was the majority position or a minority one.
I'm for it, if it's done right.
|
|
|
Post by mbogo on Jan 18, 2007 12:22:24 GMT -5
IMO, the only advantage to such organizing would be the voice in the political arena. We can do everything else now just about as effectively as we could if we were an official organization. It would be great to have another organization to choose from for those of us who have our disagreements with the existing ones, for sure. If it does come to pass, I would suggest that the organization not take votes on issues and then take official stances on those issues based on the votes. Much better to take the votes and report the vote totals on the issues to the DNR or the legislature or wherever, without making the majority stance the official stance of the organization. I suspect the remaining members of some other organizations in the state could offer some supporting advice on that matter. I would also debate the need for the restricted access site to accompany the open one. I still feel that the IBA erred in taking that route. There was a problem with the site they were on being overrun with name-calling and argument taken way beyond reasoned debate, to the extremes of verbal abuse. However, taking the organization business to a private site to avoid the mess was tossing the baby out with the bathwater, in my view. Tighter control of the abuses was a preferable answer. That solution never got the opportunity it deserved, probably mostly as a result of that site being a state forum on a national site, without the proper authority of a moderator for controlling the problem, until after it was too well ingrained. Balloting could probably be handled by some sort of electronic exclusion, and if not, we could mail in our votes on issues and elections. I do like the idea of cyber-organizations, in general. The only thing that would make the standard face-to-face, attendance-required meetings any more outdated than they already are is if we were required to travel to them on horseback. I'll still be contacting my reps whether or not I'm a member of any organization, and I suggest you all do the same. An organization such as the one suggested would give us an additional voice, and as long as the organization refrained from taking majority stances as being organizational stances, it would only be further representation on top of what we have now, regardless of whether our position on the issue at hand was the majority position or a minority one. I'm for it, if it's done right. I couldn't agree more with you on all points.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2007 12:28:21 GMT -5
The only reason you need a closed area is you have to give your members something for their dues. If you leave it all out in the open, there's no reason to be a member and pay the price of admission.
|
|
|
Post by hunter7x on Jan 18, 2007 12:41:12 GMT -5
Another thought from my feeble mind....By starting a new org of whatever sort, those doing it are saying there are no other orgs already estabilished that are good enough to join and help support their already existing cause or help dig deeper the roots already established ? What could a new organization offer that existing ones not already?
Why compete instead of joining forces ?
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Jan 18, 2007 12:57:24 GMT -5
hunter7x, I think many of us are already members of more than one organization that supports our particular interests. I'll not be dropping my membership in the NRA when I renew membership in the USSA or if I decide to also join the Gun Owners of America. I'll be renewing my IBO membership shortly, and it won't cause me to drop my memberships in two local archery clubs or prevent me from rejoining the IBA sometime soon.
Join as many as you like or just a few, according to your own budget and degree of commitment.
The other side certainly does. Next time you see a Volvo wagon with a bunch of decals in the window, see if there's only one anti-hunting organization represented, or a dozen.
|
|
|
Post by solohunter on Jan 18, 2007 13:26:35 GMT -5
Another thought from my feeble mind....By starting a new org of whatever sort, those doing it are saying there are no other orgs already estabilished that are good enough to join and help support their already existing cause or help dig deeper the roots already established ? What could a new organization offer that existing ones not already? Why compete instead of joining forces ? Exactly, there are many good orgs already established. Don't agree with them? why does that matter? It doesn't. Join them and WORK at making the changes you would want to see come to pass. Almost seems like playground mentality, "I don't wanna play with you so I am going somewhere else,...baawahhh". If some one wishes to start a "new" hunting club/org, the first thing they would have to decide in what context they exist, their purpose. To promote outdoor education? Hunting education? Political motives? Change laws that exist? Bring about new laws in regards to what their context/purpose is going to be? Personal vendettas? Personal gain? Within that context, then individuals may choose or not choose to participate, or they may choose to change the context of the group. The first step would be to decide WHAT the purpose of the org/club/site would be....."Hunters for crossbows in early archery" "Hunters for M/L in early archery" "Hunters for Habitat Enrichment and Land Access" "People for the Outdoors" Narrow it down and get a following or combine them all..so Kev..if you are wanting to start a new group and you are taking the lead what is it that you want to accomplish? For me, I feel that the biggest issue our society is facing is the disconnectedness from the outdoors, and access to that land(private and otherwise) which reinforces, refreshes and brings back our natural alignment with it. Solohunter
|
|
|
Post by mbogo on Jan 18, 2007 13:26:45 GMT -5
Well, as for other Indiana based orgs. and for me personally I would say your analysis would be entirely accurate.
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Jan 18, 2007 13:30:11 GMT -5
Woody, This site is your baby. I feel this is a great place for all of us to get together and share information, stories, and photos. Not everyone here agrees with how everyone else does their craft, but we all enjoy the debates over who and what is "right". If you would like to see your baby "organized" then we members will have the choice to stay or go, but I feel this is your decision.
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Jan 18, 2007 13:33:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bsutravis on Jan 18, 2007 13:37:04 GMT -5
Why not? Cause this site is ran very well as is.... If someone else wants to start something up than by all means go for it. Why wreck a wonderful place to come and discuss things, have fun, debate, etc.? When you form an organization you are asking the members to comply and align with the overall philosophy of that group.....obviously with discussions about OBR, Crossbows, Legal Weapons, Season Dates....etc, etc, it's impossible for everyone here to line up and march to the same drum on all the issues that are debated here. Woody does a heck of a job keeping the peace here and not letting this site turn into a Texas Cage Match, why fix it if it ain't broke?
|
|
|
Post by kyle on Jan 18, 2007 13:56:23 GMT -5
Why not? Cause this site is ran very well as is.... If someone else wants to start something up than by all means go for it. Why wreck a wonderful place to come and discuss things, have fun, debate, etc.? When you form an organization you are asking the members to comply and align with the overall philosophy of that group.....obviously with discussions about OBR, Crossbows, Legal Weapons, Season Dates....etc, etc, it's impossible for everyone here to line up and march to the same drum on all the issues that are debated here. Woody does a heck of a job keeping the peace here and not letting this site turn into a Texas Cage Match, why fix it if it ain't broke? Couldn't agree with you more Travis!
|
|
|
Post by cambygsp on Jan 18, 2007 14:25:46 GMT -5
Solo,
If that was directed at me...it's just an idea. Will I be taking the lead...I doubt it but I am willing to help!
My idea is to a "cyber" based organized sporting organization in Indiana...PERIOD!
We recently had two small fund raising actions on this site, funds were raised and causes were met! We are a motivated group!
I am sure issues will arise in the future that everyone will not agree upon....when the organization reports that 65% were in favor and 35% were against then ALL folks get representation....PERIOD!
I was more leaning toward things an organization could do, such as the fund raising and supporting fellow hunters.
Yes, there are several organizations out there, I've looked into them and I won't join because I don't beleive in their causes or don't agree with the way their ran. Some are one demensional and some I can't figure out...lol
|
|
|
Post by chicobrownbear on Jan 18, 2007 15:13:25 GMT -5
Militant offshoot?
|
|
|
Post by solohunter on Jan 18, 2007 15:44:57 GMT -5
My idea is to a "cyber" based organized sporting organization in Indiana...PERIOD!
I was more leaning toward things an organization could do, such as the fund raising and supporting fellow hunters.
So this is what you were thinking, now it is clear. Thanks. Solohunter
|
|
|
Post by solohunter on Jan 18, 2007 15:49:21 GMT -5
Why not? Cause this site is ran very well as is.... If someone else wants to start something up than by all means go for it. Why wreck a wonderful place to come and discuss things, have fun, debate, etc.? When you form an organization you are asking the members to comply and align with the overall philosophy of that group.....obviously with discussions about OBR, Crossbows, Legal Weapons, Season Dates....etc, etc, it's impossible for everyone here to line up and march to the same drum on all the issues that are debated here. Woody does a heck of a job keeping the peace here and not letting this site turn into a Texas Cage Match, why fix it if it ain't broke? Are not most offshoot orgs started with a coffee pot and a resentment? What BSU said too...
|
|
|
Post by hornharvester on Jan 18, 2007 16:34:42 GMT -5
Fellas, this site belongs to all of you. Without you it would just be Woody and I exchanging PM's. I don't think you guys realize how much clout you have with the DNR. They read this board more than you think. Where else can they get a more honest opinion about outdoor legislation than here. We have no special interest agenda here other than to promote hunting and fishing in Indiana, unlike other sites that are dedicated to their own special interest. You guys represent the TRUE Indiana outdoorsmen. h.h.
|
|
|
Post by bsutravis on Jan 18, 2007 17:49:31 GMT -5
You nailed it HH! "No special interest agenda" is the key. We talk about whatever here, and the "administration" doesn't flex their muscles and stiffle conversation when they don't agree with the subject matter.......for example, what site but this one would allow shirtless waterfowl hunters posting pictures? DU? I think not!!!! LOL.
|
|
|
Post by steiny on Jan 18, 2007 18:37:22 GMT -5
I come here for entertainment, not politics. Plenty of good groups already in place for that stuff. I'll stick with Safari Club and The Izaak Walton League.
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Jan 18, 2007 22:30:27 GMT -5
How about this. I all that is wanted is a cyber group, then start one. If that group needs a place to discuss isues then a section could be added here for that. I don't know all the proboard details, but I think an area can be 'granted access" only. It appears that way with the "Ask the CO section". The group could even leave the section as "read only" for the public so they can see what is going on and decide if they want to join.
I'm not against the group or the idea of the group. I just don't want to see a great thing destroyed by politics.
|
|
|
Post by jackc99 on Jan 18, 2007 23:10:38 GMT -5
Amen.
|
|