Outdoor Life Network / Greenpeace

[Kaz]

How many of you watch the "Outdoor Life Network" to see your favorite fishing shows?? Well, Saturday on a segment labeled "Outdoor Products Showcase" I was expecting to see the normal New Products for the outdoor person. Instead there was a half hour Informercial by Greenpeace soliciting membership and donations to their cause. Doesn't Greenpeace stand for EVERYTHING that the sportsperson DOES NOT!!! I can't understand how a outdoor sports channel would have a program of this type on prime time, Saturday morning. What are the other views of some of you?? Everyone should have a place in this earth, even Greenpeace, but I would think "OLN" would use a little more discretion in selecting their programing. Lets GET YOUR INPUT....Kaz

[beetle]

I don't get "OLN", and if what you said is true, I never will. Sounds to me like they sell air time to whoever will pay the dough, and sportsmen be ****ed. Those who do subscribe to that network should be writing or calling to vent their displeasure and to put them on notice that that is not the way to attract and hold viewers and customers for their advertiser's products.

[vetspet(ind)]

my guess is they have no option on who to sell advertising to....probably some law states that as rush limbaugh has some liberal type ads and dr laura has some really questionable groups who buy time which i would think they do not approve of...i'm not sure of this tho...steve

[River_eye]

OLN is one of my favourite channels, if not my most favourite. I don't see them as a sportsman channel though. It's called outdoor life network, and it's aimed towards a general interest of getting outside and enjoying nature. Greenpeace is a group about preserving nature, so it belongs, and sportsman shows are also about getting outside to enjoy nature.

The channel showcases just about everything you can do outdoors, sports, animals, traveling. It's also a very open-minded channel geared towards learning, so I can see them selling advertising to anybody who wants to pay for it.

[Chairman]

I get the Outdoor Channel. More fishing and hunting and less hiking and swimming. Too bad the OLN gives the impression of being a sportsmans channel.
Chairman
NPAA #6

[vetspet(ind)]

add "X files" to your list as todays newspaper lists gillian anderson..the redhead gal....as a peta person...never did like this flick and now like it much less...it will be off the viewing list of my home from now on..steve

[THUMPER]

You are correct......In Canada they have no choice but to air the spot if the customer pays. They usually run some adders through the program that tells you its a paid thing and that it does not represent the feelings of the station.

[Scott Richardson]

I guess I don't know why sportsmen should be against Greenpeace. I thought I knew what the organization stood for but I just spent a half hour combing its website at www.greenpeace.org to make sure. I didn't see any anti-sportfishing messages at all. If I missed something, I'm sorry. What I did see were well-informed position papers on over-fishing of the oceans by short-sighted commercial interests, concern over global warming, defortestation (which leads to destruction of trout streams, among other side effects) and other issues which impact the quality of the environment. They form alliances with other organizations like the Sierra Club, which certainly has a long solid history as a friend to fishermen and hunters.

Sportsmen do a great deal of good for the environment through excise taxes on tackle and guns. We give millions through fishing and hunting organizations to preserve habitat and for stocking programs. All of that will come to naught if the world's larger ecosystems faulter and deteriorate.

Merry Chirstmas
Scott Richardson

[Rob]

Well said Scott, sometimes people need find out an organization really stands for. And not just lump them all together.
Rob

[Backwater Eddy]

Greenpeace is an independent campaigning organisation that uses non-violent, creative confrontation to expose global environmental problems and to force solutions which are essential to a green and peaceful future.

Maybe if we are not part of the answer, we are part of the problem?

We have only one earth.

[Baby Seal Clubbing Sportsman]

That's right! Greenpeace is against my sport. Why they even go after them big corporations thats pollutin' out waters. Can you believe that? Why, the audacity! Next thing you know they'll be trying to stop us from extinguishing the worlds remainin' whale population so's our womensfolk kin have cosmetics to look purty. 'Dis heres gotta stop!

Cletus

[rickn]

I guess I don't keep up too good with some issues,(most, acually), but wasn't it greenpeace a few years ago that was harrassing hunters by going into the woods playing radios to scare game away? I thought that there were some physical and somewhat violent confrontations at that time, also. Don't remember anymore. Rick

[Backwater Eddy]

That was PETA related if I remember correctly?

[reelman]

Greenpeace is a Terorist Organization!!! They use scare tactics to try to get people to do what they want them to do. Even if they don't outright condone it they turn a blind eye to such things as harrasing legal whalers, and hunters, Spiking trees (which can be deadly) among other things. It is time that the government looks at some of these domestic terrorists!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Backwater Eddy]

Who is breaking the law?

The International Whaling Commission (IWC) agreed to a moratorium on commercial whaling that came into effect in 1986.

Yet Today Norway continues its commercial whaling program in the North Atlantic, openly flouting the IWC's moratorium.

Japan hunts whales under the guise of "scientific" whaling, even though the whale meat is sold on the market for profit.

In the past three years, both nations have increased the resources they devote to their whaling programs, and both are aggressively pushing to lift the ban on commercial whaling.

As for tree spiking and hunter harassment that is not a Greenpeace operation, check your facts.

[River_eye]

>Maybe if we are not part of the answer, we are part of the
>problem?
>
>We have only one earth.

Eddy, you speak with true wisdom.

Many of us forget that if we don't care for our natural resources, we won't be able to enjoy them very long into the future. Fish and wildlife are part of these natural resources.

But..... just because these may be the only resources that really matter to you, doesn't mean you can toss all the others to the birds. One thing you learn from the science of ecology is that everything is related in one way or another, through food chains and webs. If you impact one part of it, it is impossible not to have a effect somwhere else. Right now, we don't know enough about our natural world to know what we are actually doing. It's in everybody's best interest to tread lightly, and use conservation practices no matter what resource you're dealing with, from fish, to trees to who knows what.

A really good analogy is that the world ecosystem is an extremely complex computer, currently we are steadily removing wires and circuits from it one by one, hoping that it will still work, although not truly knowing when we will cut the wrong wire.

Sit tight everybody because from what I have learned in my environmental/ecology courses at school, things will have to change, we just don't know what things.

[Dave]

I am originally from British Columbia, logging capital of Canada. My lively hood depended on forests and their supply. Let me tell you Greenpeace irked me to no end with their protests and commercials. I fish,hunt, and believe in forest harvestation, yet I have worked for some major company's which seemed to care little about the enviroment. Greenpeace may be radical and a thorn in the side but they do one important function, they are the watchdog of these corporations. While I agree they are a danger to our outdoor sport and sometimes livelihood they do at times keep things in check.
Merry Christmas,
Dave

[Paul]

I too watched the show and could not believe what I saw and heard. We have to cut "old" trees and selectivly harvest or "MOTHER NATURE" will. These folks are not for "conservation", they are for "Preservation". There is a big difference. Not one time have I seen where they had a solution for harvesting anything! They are in bed with PETA and the anti-gun people. FISHUN' IS NEXT. My $0.02.

[Rickk]

Greenpeace has all kinds of people in its membership. Maybe they do have some people that are in their membership that spike trees I don't know. I'm sure its not part of their policy. I might add that we have "sportsmen" that shoot anything, break laws, pollute etc, etc. Some of these people hold membership in various sporting orginizations and embarrass good sportsmen. Can you or these organizations control them? Not much. I used to trap in my early years,.but I now see no reason for wear seal pup or any fur,..you can argue about controling certain rodents but I'm not impressed with a woman in a fur coat. "Legal" killing of whales? Who makes it legal? Bureaucats and profiteers? What can you get from a whale these days that is unique? I'm sure that some of the PETA people belong to Greenpeace, and vice versa,...but there are certainly some member of the NRA I don't want over to my house either.

[Tom P]

Always keep one eye on these guys or gals with a little too much facial hair. They say one thing,and are willing to SSSLLLOOOOWWWWLLLYYYY erode your rights to fish and hunt. They don't care if it takes 25 years + to pull a small law that gives you the right to fish on a certain lake. But after that little law is turned over they move to the next battle. Don't be too nieve. They told us that nothing would live for 300 years where the Valdese dumped it's oil. But 10 years after it is thriving.( with help from humans and a little known bacteria) We need to go to the middle and use common sense and new technologies. I feel they want to take it away if they could. They want it way to the left. We all need to make it stay right in the middle. So we all can enjoy it. There is no proven fact that there is any global warming. That is nothing more then liberal scientists and liberal media siding with a cause. There are just as many expert scientists that say we are in a cycle. And they have their proof to back their hypothesis. Just as the green scientist onl y have an opinion, not fact. But you just don't hear about that because their veiw point is at odds with the Green media.

[gettum]

Well said Scott. Groups like Greenpeace perform a valuable service. We have to think not only about ourselves but also about those who come after us. If we do not pay attention to conservation, some time from now there will be no fishing or hunting left to be done out there.
gettum

[Leechboy]

Tom P.-
I'm not sure I get your post. Are you saying the Exon Valdeez wasn't all that bad? It only takes 10 or 20 years for the ecosystem to clean itself up? I know fishermen in AK that were put out of business, and say the ecosystem hasn't come back. But I guess if you've seen pictures with pretty green and blues in in them, then it must be o.k.
As far as the global warming goes, you are right. It is all a liberal plot against you and your kind.-lb

[mikie]

I guess I got a little lost when we got to the "Greenpeace is a terrorist organization" thread. So, what's not to like about the big corporations who use political influence to harvest vast numbers of America's trees (owned by us taxpayers) at loss-leader prices so they can be sold to Japan for pulpwood? If that don't strike terror into your black little hearts, I'm sure a bunch of liberal do-gooders out scaring whalers won't either. After all, these log-corps offer many lowpaying jobs in dangerous conditions with little or no job security or pension. How could anyone be against that? m
ps - As for OLN, we enjoy its programming. Weekly evenings of Bill Dance followed by In-fisherman, with salt water fishing Saturday morning - good enough for the girls I go out with. Maybe if you'd take out ad space there to express your views, they wouldn't need Greenpeace's money to stay in business.

[Tom P]

Leechboy, No, it is not ok. but a necessity to drill for oil and use it. Use double hulled ships and by all means try to keep the capt. from drinking booze before he runs his ship full of oil into a shallow reef. If we had it "their way " this board wouldn't even be here. Because " you" wouldn't be fishing or hunting. Or driving for that matter. You could run over that rare african spotted ant you know. John Stasil did a report on "junk science" it included " Green journalism" and how bias it was, with never ever telling the other side. This included global warming. Remember they did a poll on how the "media " voted and it was 96% DFL. Some may not try to slant it to the left, but it just happens. Maybe you should read that new book that just came out called "Bias" it just hit the book stores. It was written by a liberal guy that says there is alot of bias, but some is unintentional. Use common sense and try like helll to use the latest technologies to lessen the chance of polluting "Mother" And run in the middle so we all can use Mothers gifts. Don't ban snowmobling in state forest because of noise. Just make them quieter and make them run synthetic oil, DFI and 4 strokes. That would be too easy. Let's just ban them. Because the wolfs don't like to hear noise or some "green" liberal snow shoeing in the back country hates hearing snowmoblies in the distance. That has happened already!!! All I'm asking is let's go to the middle. Not to the left as per above

[ufda]

I agree. It should be known as the Outdoor Bicycling Network. Or the Outdoor Snowboarding Network. I wouldn't be so disappointed except that, being related to the Outdoor Life publishing business you would think it would be a channel for sportsmen, not secondary outdoor sports junkies. Sort of like a fishing tournament putting on boat races.
That being said, I am just disappointed, not angry. I still watch it when hunting and fishing shows are on and give it credit for having as much of my style of programming as it does (In-fisherman and Hunting with Hank < darn what a dog that Llewelyn setter is!)
Just my opiinion,
ufda

[Limnologist]

River Eye, how right you are. The only thing that is certain is that our environment will change. It always has and always will. There is no stasis in nature. Creatures adapt to the changes in the environment or perish from the earth becoming part of the fossil record. Unfortunately, we humans, through our sheer numbers and advanced technology, have the ability to change the world's environment much more rapidly than nature (usually) does. Creatures and plants, large and small, have less time to adapt to a rapid change and many more will thus become extinct. The extinction rate has increased dramatically the last 200 years. Since we are part of the great web of life, we do indeed endanger our own survival as a species. We have to learn to respect our environment, for the environment has no conscience of its own. If we destroy it, we destroy ourselves.

[Chicken Little]

THE SKY IS FALLING!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!

[River_eye]

Tom P, your idea may work, but probably not. I think the problem with it is knowledge. We have developed such a complex lifestyle, that only about one in ten people care to learn about these sort of environmental issues. The other nine are just content to not worry about it, and go on their daily business. If we had a society that cared about the things that we should care about, then I have no doubt that we'd be able to live a socially and environmentally responsible society with more than enough modern amenities.

Another big obstacle is business. It seeks profit and profit alone, it does not care about our environment. Unfortunately it's business that drives our lifestyle.

The fact is, the majority of us would have to adapt a different lifestyle for things to be changed for the better. I beleive that this alternate lifestyle, although not as rich in objects and material goods, will be much more rich in health, and general wellbeing. And really, when you think about it, what really matters in this world? I think it's family, friends and knowledge, unfortunately too many of us are getting sidetracked.

[River_eye]

A buddy of mine took an introductory Limnology course and he highly reccomended it. Right now there's a study going on in a nearby cottage country lake. They're trying to figure out what this brown algae is that's growing there. They think it started at the bottom of the lake and now it's finally reached the shores. It blows my mind how much we don't know about this stuff.

[Leechboy]

Tom P-
I agree that moderation is something to strive for. And I agree with most of what you say, for example double hulled tankers and that sort of thing. But without groups like greenpeace and the like, double hulls for tankers wouldn't ever be considered. They (the green groups)help provide the balance. My only point is that once we screw up our enviroment, we may not be able to fix it, so we should proceed with caution based on best availible science.
As for the post that mocks those of us concerned with the enviroment ("the sky is falling"-chicken little), that is an attack "ad hominem" or attack of the person, and does not further any argument, outside of one that revolves around chicken little being a dipstick.

[River_eye]

I'm always glad to hear words of wisdom such as yours, restores faith in humanity, unfortunately, words like those from chicken little here remind of the prevailing ignorance in our society.

[cmb]

"They told us that nothing would live for 300 years where the Valdese dumped it's oil. But 10 years after it is thriving."

Interesting, although verry much untrue!!!!
some species have rebounded, and others have re-established populations within the area, but to state that "it is thriving" implies that the ecosyetems within the sound are miraculously cured; returned to their former glory; that many if not ALL sensitive or "polution intolerant species" are still present with similar population densities and genetic diversity. to state that "it is thriving" is a blatant lie!! it is recovering, but will never be the same! in 50 or 100 years our children probably won't be able to tell there was a catastrophic spill, however the area will never return to a state where it is unefected by the event! it's future, and natural history will forever be impacted.

we "need" oil for our present state of life, and I for one am not willing to drive my 50 mile commute to work on a horse and buggy, nor do I forsee efficient public transportation as an option for me. So in my tiny little way I must accept responsibility for this incident as a cost of having the luxuries we north americans have grown to "need".

I am also partialy responsible for stormwater and sewage polution entering my local stream, toxic materials leaching into the earth, and VOC and hydrocarbon emissions in the atmosphere. (we all are)

all of these polutants and countless others are introduced to our world ecosystems brcuase of our "need" to live a comfortable modern life. perhaps each one of us needs to take the burden of our impacts a little more seriously and become part of a solution rather than point fingers at "the other guy" who is worse, or is "making us do it" or threatening the status quo. I for one think it is time to look at the big picture and to set down the big stick with which we attempt to protect our rights to fish this lake, stream, ocean.....and do our part to create change, to attemt to improve our natural world faster than we destroy or perminantly alter it, to take on the responsibility of conserving and preserving our natural world so that our childern and grandchildren can experience the outdoors and even life! do we need to protect our rights to hunt, fish, and persue a love of nature? YES, but if we don't do our little part to ensure the future quality, quantity, and diversity of our natural resources our sports will never be what they are now.

Ok, off my little soap box.....but, why do we point fingers and complain instead of evoking an evolution of change to our world as we know it? why are we threatened by organizations who are activly working for a better world? we may not agree with all that they do, or 100% of what they stand for, but at least they are creating awarness and "doing there small part". do you always agree with your boss, spouse, political leaders, or the positions of clubs or organizations you belong to? yet you still suport them when they are mostly "correct" or share your common interest....

[Tom P]

I just hope to heck we can keep this thing balanced. I want to be able to fish with a high hp motor on the back of my boat 30 years from now. What will you guys say if they start banning gas motors on most lakes around the nation. Hopefully not,-------- Boat For Sale--worthless internal combustion engine for boat anchor. Great running 7hp electic motor though. I,m going to trust you guys on this one then. I may have been wrong, I just seem to feel the rug being pulled a little bit under our feet and am a little concerned.

[River_eye]

It would be really nice if we could keep this thing balanced. Unfortunately, not many people are showing a tolerance to this balance.

But, what I think what would help, is if we all had this discussion seriously with as many people you know. As long as it's not popular to talk about, information won't be shared, and nothing will be done. I'm not saying that everybody has to go and start an argument about it with everyone they know, just show your concerns about the issues, and be a good listener to their views on the issue, and in turn, if they are decent people, they will listen to your views on the issue.

Another thing to consider, besides outboards being banned on lakes are gas prices. We've seen some huge fluctuations in the last little while, so I think we have to be prepared to pay a significant price for gas in the future. It may mean that most of us won't be able to afford to put gas in that big opti or vmax.

[Rickk]

I have to say after reading many posts from different Boards, that with this one, even when people disagree, they don't get so rattled that they shut off considering other points of view. The posts here generally stay rational and intelligent. I've heard that in late winter sometimes crankness breaks out from frustrated walleyers and I've seen a few bad posts, but generally I'm impressed at the level of discussion here. We always don't know if we back the right horse but its nice that we can talk about it without all the nastyness I've seen on other boards. Its nice to see that people here seem to be interested in staying informed, being alert and listening respectfully. I'm mostly a bass and trout fisherman as we don't have a lot of walleye habitat around here,..so I'm just a visitor but I tell some of my friends that the walleye guys at Walleye Central are very unique. This is a great board.

[ryan the poor college kid]

all i can say is, GO "THE OUTDOOR CHANNEL". i have been fed up with OLN since they came on the air in south dakota. they don't carry enough fishing and hunting to suit my needs. the only drawbacks to the outdoor channel is: the late night and mid-day infomercials, and "gold-fever"! otherwise, the only channel for fishing in my world is the outdoor channel

[maybee]

What is environmental impact of cats on the bird populations of the planet?

So, have these eco-orgs been supporting laws to protect our bird species? No, but they certainly act to protect wolves and other exotic predators. Go Greenpeace, attack the right to own a feline.

[bio]

no, just the "right" for cat "owners" to let their pets run free!

rural areas may be different, but If I let my dog run the neighborhood he would certainly find himself captured and taken to the city pound, while I could let my cats run free without concern!

[Marble Eyes]

Used to be open season for cats round here....wait a minute, still is :)

[Kaz]

Boy ask a question and WOW it gets everyone going!!! For those of you who would like to let OLN know your feelings, POSITIVE or NEGATIVE, here is the "Feedback" web site. www.olntv.com/gifbfeedbackcfm . Let them know how you feel. It's good for the soul, and it's important to them too. I always asked my marketing personal to get and report "The Good and The Bad". It helped management to improve the product and gave the customer excatly what they wanted. It's good for business!! Good luck AND LET THEM KNOW HOW YOU FEEL...Kaz