←back to thread

150 points pmags | 1 comments | | HN request time: 1.004s | source
Show context
RajT88 ◴[] No.43643433[source]
I've observed this weird cognitive dissonance with outdoorsmen, since I am quite fond of fishing.

They tend to be a pretty hardcore MAGA bunch, but also don't like pollution because it messes up their sport. When you ask them about stuff like this (how can you support someone who pretty openly wants to mess up your pastime?), they get mad or change the subject.

I get it - people are complicated and can care about many things at once. Nobody likes it when someone is seemingly poking at their belief systems. Still - you'd think it'd give them some kind of pause.

replies(21): >>43643451 #>>43643457 #>>43643479 #>>43643497 #>>43643522 #>>43643549 #>>43643589 #>>43643595 #>>43643605 #>>43643648 #>>43643677 #>>43643697 #>>43643736 #>>43643834 #>>43643883 #>>43643896 #>>43643976 #>>43643993 #>>43644002 #>>43644450 #>>43644811 #
s1artibartfast ◴[] No.43643976[source]
As an outdoorsman, fisher, and hunter, I view the other party as at war my hobbies.

California banned the diesel engines being used by the fishing boat I went out on. Without 300k to retrofit, the charter went out of business and everyone lost their jobs.

replies(2): >>43644071 #>>43644377 #
dymk ◴[] No.43644071[source]
Would you rather there be no outdoors for your grandchildren to hunt in? The “other party” isn’t at war with hunting, they just want a planet that’s livable for future generations.
replies(3): >>43644404 #>>43644482 #>>43667740 #
s1artibartfast ◴[] No.43644482[source]
>Would you rather there be no outdoors for your grandchildren to hunt in?

Of course not. Thats the kind of lack of nuance that I object to.

I support high reward changes that protect or revitalize the environment. Banning several diesel boats instead of phasing them out at the end life/next upgrade isn't going to save the planet. It just makes the outdoors and environment inaccessible.

There are so many thoughtless and net negative policies.

replies(2): >>43645121 #>>43645127 #
1. dymk ◴[] No.43645121[source]
We don't have time to wait for a bunch of diesel engines to die of old age - as you know, they're quite long lived. And how long do you think is reasonable for diesel to be "phased out"? DEF became mandatory in the mid-2000s. It's been long enough.

At some point you have to draw a line and say, we're not going to allow something that spits out this much pollution just to make catching fish as cheap as it used to be.