RRC Archives

Dang! We were all set to go get our asses kicked at the Holy Boulders (shhh.. secret spot!), but the damn selfish* land owner doesn't want climbers around because this is an official State of Illinois 'shooting deer with a shotgun' weekend!

(* for the sarcasm impaired - that's sarcasm in action)

ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah... that sucks

thats nice lets bash the landowners, who are nice enough to let us use their land, because you have different recreational activity. Which by the way better for the land than climbing is

Woah now!!! I know you're being sarcastic, but the land owner was being very nice letting you know it was a hunting season. Would you rather be sending a project and just about ready to nail it when you get hit with some hot lead?

If you know where Holy Boulders is (since it is a secret location) then you also must no how delicate the access is.

It definately sucks, but I'm sure the hunting dates are posted someplace on the net. Next time you go just give it a quick look.

Hunters have 'rights' too.

deal with it wrote:thats nice lets bash the landowners, who are nice enough to let us use their land, because you have different recreational activity. Which by the way better for the land than climbing is

hmmm... Maybe redundancy will help: For the sarcasm impared - I was being entirely sarcastic in describing the land owners as 'selfish'. Of course, if you aren't clear on the meaning of the word 'sarcasm', I don't think I can help. I was making fun of myself and other climbers who get genuinely aggrivated over situtations like this. What part of my post was so difficult to understand that you came to the conclusion that I was, in any way, "bashing" the land owners? I anticipated a certain level of "cognitive sluggishness" in understanding the tone of my initial post, and that's why I went so far as to add a freakin' footnote to it.

As for the following:

Which by the way better for the land than climbing is

I think there's a verb missing in there somewhere. Is this intended to state that selectively killing off large indegenous mamals and scattering lots of nuggets of non-local metals all over the place, not to mention driving the manditory gas guzzling pickup trucks (one per hunter, of course) is 'better for the land' than packing into a small car, walking into a boulder field and scrambling on bare rock?

"But," I know many will say, "it is necessary to hunt deer in order to control their population, so that's GOOD for the environment." In a short sighted way, that's right. But it is 'necessary' to hunt deer to keep their population at levels that the current style of land use can sustain, precisely because of our choices in modifying the environment, not to mention intentionally killing off the non-human predators that would otherwise work to control the deer population. In the big picture, climbing has a pretty tiny impact (bolts, chalk, 'gardening' and all) in comparison to the complex of activities that makes non-subsitance hunting 'necessary'.

And keep in mind, I have relatives who depend on deer hunting to eat part of the year (that's know as 'subsistence hunting' as opposed to 'sport hunting'), so from my perspective, maybe some hunters deserve 'rights' more than others.

Some animals are more equal than other animals.

tomdarch wrote: I don't think I can help. I was making fun of...and..."bashing" the land owners

What in the hell is wrong with you!
As for the other half...you have to draw see the difference between hunters and poachers, but that is not a discussion for this board so I will drop it.

The lack of fully formed sentences is clueing me in that I really, really shouldn't pursue this.

I hunt, I subsist.I climb also. What is the problem?