
Originally Posted by
drwilly
hell of an assumption. pointing out the fact that those w family land (usually inherited) have no sympathy or perspective of those that don't and hunt public land. So it matters to them when things like this happen or when they add more restrictions. not green w envy but saying the bourgeoisie should have a little more grace towards the proletariat. he offered no better solution but just scoffed at the responses of those actually affected. maybe private land access would've been a better choice of words than family land. I might not have seemed so green and butt hurt.
Ok here’s my explanation. You seem to have a burr in your saddle and are painting with a broad brush. The fact that you’ve responded so much to this point from others appears to be an attempt to be understood. But we know it’s your plea to be heard. You thought many would agree with your screw the man property owner Schtick but it backfired. “Usually inherited” tells us all we need to know about you. Tell me, is your private land access “inherited” as well? Would that matter? Since you have that access, do you also not care about Joe Public? Or are you the only exception? Sorry not sorry you weren’t in the lucky sperm club. Owning land doesn’t preclude one from understanding public land hunter scenarios. I’d argue it may heighten it bc most are good stewards of their land and couldn’t imagine not having a say so or input on the land they hunt, like the public hunter. But how does owning land require you to give a shit about what the public hunter deals with? I’d say you should catch a knee here, catch your breath, maybe go take a nap and take the L, and live to fight another day in another thread. Maybe next time ease your toe in the water and take the temp before diving in the deep end, where you’re clearly over your head.
\"We say grace and we say maam, if you ain\'t into that, we don\'t give a damn.\" HW Jr.
Bookmarks