[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[at-l] Perception - Cell Phones.



I live on a piece of rural property.  My neighbor hunts with dogs, which is 
legal here.  Well, my neighbor would like to think, or at least have you 
think, he hunts.

He gets together with friends each deer hunting season, each with dogs, each 
with a Citizens Band Radio in a vehicle.  The ?hunters? pre-position their 
vehicles at spots along roads where deer cross.  They release their dogs at 
a strategic spot and their dogs chase deer.  They know the distinctive sound 
of each dog and how their own dogs chase deer.  They sit in running 
vehicles, with the heat on, listening to music, drinking alcoholic beverages 
and alert one-another with their radios when deer approach their position.  
Just before deer arrive, the ?hunter? leaves the comfort of his vehicle and 
shoot at the deer as they cross the road.

These people are not hunters.  They are just shooters; poachers to be exact.

My neighbor has asked me several times if he can hunt on my property.  I 
tell him, I?m not going to deny any neighbor permission to hunt on my land.  
But he must hunt on the land, not the road, and I don?t want dogs running 
the deer.

My neighbor has never accepted my offer.  He has asked me to accompany him 
and his friends on one of their ?hunts.?  He assures me, that once I 
experience the thrill, I will enjoy it and understand why they do this.  I 
would, implicitly, then give them full permission to run their dogs across 
my property.  (They already park on the road where deer cross to enter my 
land.)

I considered accompanying them for just one time, thinking they would then 
reciprocate and accept my offer to hunt and might learn to appreciate 
hunting.  I decided against this, however, realizing, first, what they are 
doing is, simply put, wrong, and second, they aren?t going to understand 
what real hunting offers; they aren?t going to accept the inconvenience and 
discomfort long enough to appreciate hunting.

The cell phone disagreement reminds me of this ?hunting? difference.  
Positions vary.  Some want nothing more to intrude upon what wildness we 
have, NOTHING.  Others consider that we should limit the intrusions.  Still 
others believe we should have whatever convenience we want, period.

You either feel what wildness / wilderness has to offer or you don?t.  If 
you feel it, you realize it is unique, precious, fragile and, therefore, 
tenuous.   You want to protect it, or you could just wipe your behind with 
it.

Stopping all further intrusions upon wildness may preserve the wildness.  
Limiting intrusions upon wildness slows the erosion of wildness.  Accepting 
that whatever you want should prevail, unwilling to accept even minor 
inconveniences, will destroy wildness almost immediately.

I appreciate those who would allow no further intrusions.  They are right, 
they may not succeed but they make my efforts, to merely limit intrusion, 
much easier.

Steve