OnX hypocrisy

[WRO]

When a tag that used to be over the counter moves to draw... I care

When a 0 point unit becomes a 5 point minimum... I care

When regulations change for the worse and opportunities are taken away because of an influencer posting stupid videos... I care

When a good hunting spot gets burned because of social media... I care

When I think about what the future of hunting access and opportunities will be like for the kids and generations to come... I care

If you want to sit on the sidelines and watch thats your prerogative.

Bitching on an internet hunting forum is definitely going to solve all those problems .

 

[WKR]

Bitching on an internet hunting forum is definitely going to solve all those problems .

Right, because thats all we do huh?

www.Huntersforaccess.org

 

[HuntQuietly]

Apathy is a far bigger and potent adversary than intelligence (or lack thereof).

 

[fwafwow]

Is anyone going to answer the questions asked repeatedly, most recently by @MattB?

 

[WRO]

Right, because thats all we do huh?

www.Huntersforaccess.org

Good on ya..

 

[WKR]

I read that, but it doesn’t answer the question. If there was no public access previously, he has done nothing to restrict public access as you have asserted. And if he hasn’t restricted public access, I see no hypocrisy. This is one of those “words have meanings” situations.

Ok...how about this

OnX project landlocked summary:
Raise awareness around the broken system of landlocked lands and show the public they have millions of acres of "their" land that is unreachable. Claim to be actively working with landowners and govt to open access through easements etc...

Meanwhile: Founder of OnX is using said unreachable lands for personal gain.

He could have picked countless other parcel to lease and run his business out of. But he picks the ones that surround landlocked parcels to use that public ground for his benefit.

Are we seeing eye to eye now? Or still in disagreement?

 

[PMcGee]

I read that, but it doesn’t answer the question. If there was no public access previously, he has done nothing to restrict public access as you have asserted. And if he hasn’t restricted public access, I see no hypocrisy. This is one of those “words have meanings” situations.

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Z71&Gun]

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

When you lease land that is valuable because it blocks access to public, you participate in a trend which is incentivizing land owners to block access to public land.

Which is not hypocritical in itself.

It becomes hypocritical when you are the leader of a campaign to open landlocked public land to public access. In that case it's hypocritical because one's actions are contributing to a problem that he is very publicly championing against.

 

[HuntQuietly]

If you haven’t struck oil yet, the pocket is dry.

 

[Z71&Gun]

My logic is what he’s doing isn’t taking away access to public land. If he bought land that allowed public access and then stopped public access I’d see your point. But that’s not what he did according to the op. He’s leasing the hunting rights. There’s a big difference. Onx’s is for trying to gain access to landlocked property. He didn’t stop access to landlocked property or gain access to landlocked property’s. He didn’t take an opportunity from someone because there never was one. If you show me where they say they’re against outfitters leasing property next to landlocked property I’d change my position. But I can’t find it. And yes i did look but I’m not going to spend hours on it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

"He didn’t stop access to landlocked property or gain access to landlocked property’s."

False

 

[Swamp Fox]

What's on this sacred land-locked ground?

Is it a gravel pit, a brush pile, or the Garden of Eden?

Most of the government ground I've ever been on should earn the bureaucrats celebrating and promoting it to hunters a tall tree and a short rope.

 

[HuntQuietly]

 

[WRO]

When you lease land that is valuable because it blocks access to public, you participate in a trend which is incentivizing land owners to block access to public land.

Which is not hypocritical in itself.

It becomes hypocritical when you are the leader of a campaign to open landlocked public land to public access. In that case it's hypocritical because one's actions are contributing to a problem that he is very publicly championing against.

Or he leased land, that like nearly every ranch in the west, has public in holdings that don’t have deeded access.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Swamp Fox]

View attachment 616771

This seems about right, so far.

 

[Szwampdonkey]

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.

Not if you couldn’t care less about people in other countries making iphones for peanuts. I know i don’t give a damn. Not all Americans are hypocrites.

 

[Z71&Gun]

Or he leased land, that like nearly every ranch in the west, has public in holdings that don’t have deeded access.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is wrong for a few reasons

 

[Z71&Gun]

What's on this sacred land-locked ground?

Is it a gravel pit, a brush pile, or the Garden of Eden?

Most of the government ground I've ever been on should earn the bureaucrats celebrating and promoting it to hunters a tall tree and a short rope.

That's actually what's on it. A sacred tall tree and short rope surrounded by gravel pits filled with brush piles.

 

[PMcGee]

"He didn’t stop access to landlocked property or gain access to landlocked property’s."

False

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

 

[MattB]

Ok...how about this

OnX project landlocked summary:
Raise awareness around the broken system of landlocked lands and show the public they have millions of acres of "their" land that is unreachable. Claim to be actively working with landowners and govt to open access through easements etc...

Meanwhile: Founder of OnX is using said unreachable lands for personal gain.

He could have picked countless other parcel to lease and run his business out of. But he picks the ones that surround landlocked parcels to use that public ground for his benefit.

Are we seeing eye to eye now? Or still in disagreement?

How does that further restrict public access?

 

[PMcGee]

View attachment 616771

Looking in the mirror?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro