- Banned
- #121
Right, I figure your experience is vastly different than mine. I might agree with you completely if I'd lived in your shoes. What concerns me about you is you won't answer my simple answer. Would you support a group that supports public lands and anti hunting? Not answering my question is a huge red flag to me. If you answer yes, or people who do are one issue hunters, according to me. Also, you don't get that public lands do mean something to me. They mean much, much more to you. Maybe I'm real naive too?
Its always interesting to me that people want to place other people in tidy little boxes, so their pre-determined biases can be confirmed.
Why does that question matter to you? What makes it important? Why is it a "red flag"?
The way a collaboration works, is not to pick apart each other over the differences, but to focus on the things that we agree on. So, if that means that I work with a group to solve a public lands issue that we agree on...frankly I don't give a chit what their position is on politics. What they think about hunting, fishing, or trapping. What color they are. What religion they are. I just flat don't care...lets focus on the issue at hand, period.
Its been my experience that once you start a dialogue and work with diverse groups over an issue you have in common, its pretty difficult for them to later knife you in the back. They still may not agree on everything, but they sure as hell will respect someone that they went to battle with on the same side of an issue.
I'm tired of fighting every battle alone...and have seen how things get done when you reach consensus. Consensus and collaboration bears only one thing, and that's fruit.