OnX hypocrisy

[HuntQuietly]

The op is grasping at straws here. Unless the land in question was open to the public before he hasn’t limited anything. I’m all for trying to get landowners to allow access but it’s up to them. Nobody has a right to tell someone what they should do with their private property regardless of what it’s blocking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Did you even read the original post?

Edit: . Pennsylvania. Got it. Nevermind

 

[PMcGee]

Did you even read the original post?

Edit: . Pennsylvania. Got it. Nevermind

Yes I read the post. Please tell me how he’s a hypocrite. He’s done absolutely nothing to limit access to landlocked public land. You and the op have your panties in a bunch over nothing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[PMcGee]

That's not really the whole point OP is making.

What’s his point then? The guy leased land that boarders landlocked public ground. Was this ground previously accessible through the leased property? If it was then he’s a hypocrite. If he’s in the outfitting business it’s a smart decision to lease that property why wouldn’t he? I don’t have OnX never did so I’m not to worried about the other conspiracy theories being discussed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[TheTone]

It’s not just an onx issue imo. I’d say a ton of hunting related companies are doing things that are hurting peoples opportunities currently and going forward all in the name of selling product and manufacturing “d” level celebrities

 

[Leverwalker]

It’s not just an onx issue imo. I’d say a ton of hunting related companies are doing things that are hurting peoples opportunities currently and going forward all in the name of selling product and manufacturing “d” level celebrities

Timely maybe. Listening right now to an old Meateater Podcast where Steve Rinella's brother Matt lays into him, and the show devolves to some pretty bad blood. Sad to listen to actually as I understand they've become estranged, but germane, I think, to this issue.

 

[HuntQuietly]

Yes I read the post. Please tell me how he’s a hypocrite. He’s done absolutely nothing to limit access to landlocked public land. You and the op have your panties in a bunch over nothing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Dude I have more public land in my County than you have in your entire state.

Sit this one out, watch and observe and do a little research about OnX and their stated-company “goals” of increasing access and specifically fighting against outfitters and private landowners who purposefully establish businesses that can use locked public land like it’s their own.

Then go grab that dusty dictionary off the shelf and look up: Hypocrite.

Then you’ll pick up what he’s putting down.

 

[PMcGee]

Dude I have more public land in my County than you have in your entire state.

Sit this one out, watch and observe and do a little research about OnX and their stated-company “goals” of increasing access and specifically fighting against outfitters and private landowners who purposefully establish businesses that can use locked public land like it’s their own.

Then go grab that dusty dictionary off the shelf and look up: Hypocrite.

Then you’ll pick up what he’s putting down.

Well aren’t you special!!! Again show me where this land was previously open to the public. You can’t. You obviously have an agenda here that I really don’t care about. I’m out before the thread gets locked.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[fngTony]

Remember to keep your comments respectful even when disagreeing with others. Heated debate is fine but getting pissy because people want to form their own opinion or tacky comments about where someone is from will get this shut down and/or action taken against you.

 

[Fowl Play]

Just remember as you cast stones at another. You’re likely posting from an electronic device that was built with human rights violations in another country. Out of sight, out of mind. The 21st century American is a hypocrite if you get down to brass tacks.

 

[HuntQuietly]

You obviously have an agenda here that I really don’t care about

Right. That’s obvious, and dare I say you don’t have an adequate frame of reference to understand the main point of the OP or the issue at large. The same way I would have absolutely no understanding of tree stand rules, rights and ethics in the east.

But the OP point is stil crystal clear to those of us that do have context for it - which is the CEO of a company has done EXACTLY what his company purports to work against and fight against.

Whether or not the land was or was not accessible before he bought it is literally meaningless. Has absolutely no bearing on whether or not he is a hypocrite.

It is a strict case of two-faced hypocrisy that’s all. No need to over complicate it.

+++++++++++++
For the record - I am NOT Matt Rinella nor am I associated with the HuntQuietly podcast in any way.

I simply arrived at the same epiphany that he/they did…..and…..well. Nevermind

 

[Swamp Fox]

Just remember as you cast stones at another. You’re likely posting from an electronic device that was built with human rights violations in another country. Out of sight, out of mind. The 21st century American is a hypocrite if you get down to brass tacks.

 

[PMcGee]

Right. That’s obvious, and dare I say you don’t have an adequate frame of reference to understand the main point of the OP or the issue at large. The same way I would have absolutely no understanding of tree stand rules, rights and ethics in the east.

But the OP point is stil crystal clear to those of us that do have context for it - which is the CEO of a company has done EXACTLY what his company purports to work against and fight against.

Whether or not the land was or was not accessible before he bought it is literally meaningless. Has absolutely no bearing on whether or not he is a hypocrite.

It is a strict case of two-faced hypocrisy that’s all. No need to over complicate it.

+++++++++++++
For the record - I am NOT Matt Rinella nor am I associated with the HuntQuietly podcast in any way.

I simply arrived at the same epiphany that he/they did…..and…..well. Nevermind

This is an honest question. Can you point me to where in their agenda it says they’re against outfitters leasing land next to public land? I skimmed through and didn’t see it maybe it’s there. And where I’m from has zero bearing on this topic honestly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Billinsd]

Just remember as you cast stones at another. You’re likely posting from an electronic device that was built with human rights violations in another country. Out of sight, out of mind. The 21st century American is a hypocrite if you get down to brass tacks.

Straw man argument alert, straw man argument alert.

 

[Billinsd]

Whether or not the land was or was not accessible before he bought it is literally meaningless. Has absolutely no bearing on whether or not he is a hypocrite.

It is a strict case of two-faced hypocrisy that’s all. No need to over complicate it.

I’ll translate what you wrote. Whether or not the land was accessible or not before he bought it, is meaningless. It has no bearing on whether or not he is a hypocrite. What I believe you are trying to say is “he should not have bought land that prevented public access to public land. A good point you could make is that he should have allowed access through his newly acquired land to public property and for not doing that he’s a hypocrite. Maybe it’s been said already, but my take is that he bought all this private property that land locks public land, why not allow public access through his land? I wouldn’t allow access through my land to public land, almost entirely because of the liability. However, I haven’t made a fortune banging a drum for public access either. To me he is not a hypocrite unless he is buying land and going out of his way to keep people from accessing public land, making it harder. It’s not a strict case of hypocrisy, not to me. I don’t think it’s hypocrisy, however, there is a good argument that it is. Keep out the strawmen and the bigotry of non residents out of it.

 

[HuntQuietly]

Exactly. Has nothing to do with the topic at hand -yet very relevant in a lot of unrelated discussions.

I have extremely limited connectivity out here at antelope camp while waiting for a message that my pack mule skillz are needed. That combined with a healthy skepticism that you even skimmed anything makes me inclined to let someone else do that research for you.

They will be along shortly I’m sure.

++++++++++++++
For the record - I am NOT Matt Rinella nor am I associated with the HuntQuietly podcast in any way.

I simply arrived at the same epiphany that he/they did…..and…..well. Nevermind

 

[Fowl Play]

@Billinsd & @HuntQuietly I made a very direct response to your arguments just a few posts prior before I got more, let's say "philosophical". Though... you only chose to respond to the one that cannot be refuted.

Please read that post and explain the hypocrisy again. I have read up on this topic, please show me where OnX claims they are the champion of hunting philanthropy and were using their own money to open up the West...

 

[Billinsd]

@Billinsd & @HuntQuietlyPlease read that post and explain the hypocrisy again. I have read up on this topic, please show me where OnX claims they are the champion of hunting philanthropy and were using their own money to open up the West...

No, I won’t. I said that your statement that your statement that 21st Americans are hypocrites for possibly owning electronics made by companies with human rights violations makes us hypocrites. That’s a straw man argument that has nothing to do with this thread. A hypocrite is someone who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion, or who acts in contradiction to his stated beliefs or feelings. There are valid arguments that OnX has done this and that he has not. I personally don’t believe OnX has been hypocritical, but there are arguments that they have been. Then there is the question, very hypocritical or a little. I think that is the real argument everyone is going back and forth on. I’m not on any side on this, except that it bothers me very, very little if at all that a few guys create a big business related to hunting and make a lot of money off of it. To me it’s “much ado about nothing”. Lack of hunter recruitment, lack of habitat, a population growing unchecked, a federal deficit that will cripple us in 25 year, hatred of America by millions of Americans for our culture and heritage, including hunting and gun ownership is important. In 20 years numbers of hunters will drop off the cliff as the last of us Boomers reach our 80s.

 

[Billinsd]

and do a little research about OnX and their stated-company “goals” of increasing access and specifically fighting against outfitters and private landowners who purposefully establish businesses that can use locked public land like it’s their own.

You seem to have done your research. I found this on their website right now. “public access to public land is part of onX’s DNA. We are committed to protecting access to the landscapes that fuel our adventure and exploration. We work closely with nonprofit and land management patterns to identify, advocate for, and directly support opportunities to improve or secure access to our public land.” And you are saying they are hypocrites for buying land locked land that hasn’t provided public access to public land and now they own that private land? My best argument is why don’t they provide access through their private land to public and not to do so is hypocritical. Of course they can have reasons, like liability, etc. it’s up to all of us to decide. I don’t think it’s a big deal, but I can understand why others do, and it’s their prerogative.

 

[Fowl Play]

No, I won’t. I said that your statement that your statement that 21st Americans are hypocrites for possibly owning electronics made by companies with human rights violations makes us hypocrites. That’s a straw man argument that has nothing to do with this thread. A hypocrite is someone who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion, or who acts in contradiction to his stated beliefs or feelings. There are valid arguments that OnX has done this and that he has not. I personally don’t believe OnX has been hypocritical, but there are arguments that they have been. Then there is the question, very hypocritical or a little. I think that is the real argument everyone is going back and forth on. I’m not on any side on this, except that it bothers me very, very little if at all that a few guys create a big business related to hunting and make a lot of money off of it. To me it’s “much ado about nothing”. Lack of hunter recruitment, lack of habitat, a population growing unchecked, a federal deficit that will cripple us in 25 year, hatred of America by millions of Americans for our culture and heritage, including hunting and gun ownership is important. In 20 years numbers of hunters will drop off the cliff as the last of us Boomers reach our 80s.

Guess, I'm totally confused by you then. Can't tell if you are saying they are hypocrites or not. Then you go on to say you are not on anyone's side, but have made many posts in the thread all over the place. Are you trying to take the position of a lawyer or moderator -- crying out "objection" when you think someone has made a post contrary to how you think the discussion aught to be going?

 

[HuntQuietly]

Fowl play and McGee - I can’t quite wrap my head around the logic you’re using.

It sounds like - as a crude analogy- that if there is a politician that runs a campaign claiming to be against corruption and that he/she will work to end corruption - when they get elected then as long as they only utilize the “normal” amount of corruption - however bad it is - then they weren’t hypocritical when they told everyone they were fighting to eliminate corruption ???

I don’t have any beef with what people do with their money. But that doesn’t mean it’s not hypocritical to run an organization that -quite clearly and very loudly - claims to be the advocate of unlocking public lands and reducing the ability of private landowners to effectively annex their land make money off the outfitting because only they can legally access it….turns around and does exactly that.

If you mean his actions are separate from those of OnX -then that is a reasonable argument which should then call into question exactly how committed the company is to those goals if the CEO is (quite obviously) not sympathetic to it in his personal life. Different path- same outcome.

If those don’t qualify as hypocrisy then one of us doesn’t have a grasp of the definition.

If you can post it, that might help.

+++++++++
For the record - I am NOT Matt Rinella nor am I associated with the HuntQuietly podcast in any way.

I simply arrived at the same epiphany that he/they did…..and…..well. Nevermind