OnX hypocrisy

[swavescatter]

Can we get RedneckBMXer in here to perform some conflict resolution?

 

[Elmer J. Fudd]

I think it is the fact that he has an opportunity to possibly increase access and has not taken advantage. Now perhaps the conditions of the lease do not permit this. We don’t know. I can definitely understand why people would want to know. It would be great advertising for the company if they leased land that could be crossed so previously unreachable government lands be available for the general public to use.

 

[MattB]

I’m pretty sure he’s trolling at this point


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I think he has realized the hill he has chosen to die on may not be legally accessible because he may have to cross checkerboarded land to get there. But he sure as hell won’t pay for OnX to find out.

And while he is conflicted, not sure how to reach the hill, he knows one things for sure - his plight is intertwined with the OnX owner’s secret scheme to screw hunters out of access to public lands. He just isn’t sure how exactly nor can he articulate it.

 

[WKR]

I think he has realized the hill he has chosen to die on may not be legally accessible because he may have to cross checkerboarded land to get there. But he sure as hell won’t pay for OnX to find out.

And while he is conflicted, not sure how to reach the hill, he knows one things for sure - his plight is intertwined with the OnX owner’s secret scheme to screw hunters out of access to public lands. He just isn’t sure how exactly nor can he articulate it.

First you are asking me to explain the hypocrisy which I did. Then you change your question to how does it restrict access.

I'm not going to hold your hand through this any longer.

 

[4rcgoat]

Entertaining thread for sure
I don't subscribe to any of these apps so I genuinely hope they all fail
Let's go back to how things used to be done....roll up the sleeves,lace up the boots,take your paper map and tell all the influences and anyone else trying to make a living selling bullshit to go @$ck themselves.......problem solved

 

[Z71&Gun]

Tell me how. Show me proof. Again as I said before I’ll change my mind if someone will show proof but nobody has.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I don't understand why this is difficult for you. Leasing land that surrounds public land gets you access to the public land. That's why people do it. Do you need a picture of the guy on the public land with his signature on it?

 

[PMcGee]

I don't understand why this is difficult for you. Leasing land that surrounds public land gets you access to the public land. That's why people do it. Do you need a picture of the guy on the public land with his signature on it?

The land was already landlocked. He didn’t buy land and create more landlocked land. Again tell me where he is taking away access. You can’t just like I have seen where onx is against outfitters leasing said land.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[WRO]

I don't understand why this is difficult for you. Leasing land that surrounds public land gets you access to the public land. That's why people do it. Do you need a picture of the guy on the public land with his signature on it?

Once again, tell us you don’t understand ranches in the west without telling us.

Every ranch I’ve hunted or been on in the west has some sort of in hold public land as a general rule. 99.9% of the time it doesn’t have deeded access and is typically fragmented, has no water, and is in smaller pieces.

And to your prior point it should be sold and the funds used to buy useful land or traded off.

 

[Mikedlaw]

This thread is cooked beyond well done. The few still arguing back and forth are not going to change each other's minds and there is plenty of information in the thread for anyone to make their own conclusion.

 

[Jethro]

Serious question, not stirring the pot: does Siegfried own cottonwood? Google did not find me anything

 

[Z71&Gun]

The land was already landlocked. He didn’t buy land and create more landlocked land. Again tell me where he is taking away access. You can’t just like I have seen where onx is against outfitters leasing said land.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I concede your final remaining point that he did not directly create more landlocked land with this lease.

I never suggested that he did, and my argument does not require that premise to be true for the conclusion to be true and the argument to be valid.

Are you going to address my points?

1)that he is contributing to a trend that incentivizes land owners to keep and lease exclusive access to public.
2) that is adverse to the theme of his "project landlocked" campaign, thus hypocritical.
3) contrary to what you said before, he did gain access to landlocked public land by leasing the surrounding land.

 

[Z71&Gun]

Once again, tell us you don’t understand ranches in the west without telling us.

Every ranch I’ve hunted or been on in the west has some sort of in hold public land as a general rule. 99.9% of the time it doesn’t have deeded access and is typically fragmented, has no water, and is in smaller pieces.

And to your prior point it should be sold and the funds used to buy useful land or traded off.

I understand how in holdings work. They are typically leased grazing rights at a steep discount in 15 year terms, not ownership interest, that is almost always renewed and usually transfers with the land. You don't need deeded access or an in holding to get on the GD public land. You just need access that doesn't require trespass. In holdings and deeded access have nothing to do with leasing hunting rights, then accessing otherwise inaccessible public land. A rancher's in holdings on public land, absent a lack of access, do not prevent hunters from hunting that land. I hunt those types of lands all the time. I live in the west and work in land use. I fckn get it. Multiple things can be true at the same time.

 

[PMcGee]

I concede your final remaining point that he did not directly create more landlocked land with this lease.

I never suggested that he did, and my argument does not require that premise to be true for the conclusion to be true and the argument to be valid.

Are you going to address my points?

1)that he is contributing to a trend that incentivizes land owners to keep and lease exclusive access to public.
2) that is adverse to the theme of his "project landlocked" campaign, thus hypocritical.
3) contrary to what you said before, he did gain access to landlocked public land by leasing the surrounding land.

People were leasing land long before onx and unless this land was going to be used for public access before he leased it he hasn’t done anything to take an opportunity from anyone. That’s the point of this thread no? He didn’t take any public land from anyone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[SWOHTR]

This thread is cooked beyond well done. The few still arguing back and forth are not going to change each other's minds and there is plenty of information in the thread for anyone to make their own conclusion.

Nah man we gotta cook through the stall…203 degrees baby!

 

[Z71&Gun]

People were leasing land long before onx and unless this land was going to be used for public access before he leased it he hasn’t done anything to take an opportunity from anyone. That’s the point of this thread no? He didn’t take any public land from anyone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

So, no. Not gonna address my argument at all. Just repeat yourself. Awesome, good work.

Repetition: ️️️️️
Reading comp: ️
Response to questions: ️

Would not recommend.

 

[fngTony]

This thread is cooked beyond well done. The few still arguing back and forth are not going to change each other's minds and there is plenty of information in the thread for anyone to make their own conclusion.

Agreed