Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 35

Thread: Is author Jim Rearden (Alaska's Wolf Man) an "Anti"?

  1. #1
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default Is author Jim Rearden (Alaska's Wolf Man) an "Anti"?

    In a discussion on the fisheries mgmt forum a member here called Jim Rearden an "anti":
    Quote Originally Posted by Akres
    He [Jim Rearden] started out like most...full of p and v...as he aged his mind started slipping...you could watch it happening in his works. Same way most hunters become over time. Completely understandable and I don't blame him for his condition...But honestly in the end...Yes...Very Anti...It is good to point this type thing as it seems to creep into our society without most realizing it..
    Softie's is what I call them...Soft Anti's...he grew Soft over time, as he sat around in his cubicle heated by Natural Gas...When someone else was paying for it. Really easy for his type to cry about development and yet make his living off others toil...Of all the books and articles I have read of him...not once do I recall him having a job and puttting in an honest day.
    This opinion above stemmed from this op-ed by Jim Rearden:
    http://www.adn.com/2011/04/21/v-prin...etter-bet.html

    We can agree or disagree on numerous issues related to hunting and fishing and development. But it takes the cake really when some use the "Anti" label (and go even farther to denigrate someone) on a fellow hunter and longtime Alaskan just because they don't agree with him.

    So what say you all, is Jim Rearden what the AOD member quoted above says he is because he penned that op-ed?

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post
    So what say you all, is Jim Rearden what the AOD member quoted above says he is because he penned that op-ed?
    Sounds to me like he's concerned about Alaska's resources in the long run.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    NorthWest Alaska
    Posts
    3,635

    Default

    Wasnt Jim Rearden the author and Glaser the 'Hunter'?

    Hope I dont become like "most hunters over time"...........

    A pretty cool fellow once quipp'd

    "I yam wats I yam, and dat's all dat I yam!"
    If you can't Kill it with a 30-06, you should Hide.

    "Dam it all", The Beaver told me.....

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    NorthWest Alaska
    Posts
    3,635

    Default

    Maby , Familyman, you have hit the dot.......maby he is aware of the Great Southern Kill aproaching.............People everywhere, canned hunts, Leases, hunting teams, Blaaaa , blaaaaa, blaaaa.....

    Im gonna have nightmares tonight.....
    If you can't Kill it with a 30-06, you should Hide.

    "Dam it all", The Beaver told me.....

  5. #5
    Supporting Member Amigo Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Wrangell
    Posts
    7,599

    Default

    Alaska is the land and critters on the land and in the waters not the people anymore. Many can see a day when folks comming to Alaska might well say,heck it looks like LA
    Now left only to be a turd in the forrest and the circle will be complete.Use me as I have used you

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,084

    Default anti's

    The real anti's are those who would destroy habitat in the name of profit, disguised as progress. That they turn it around and decry those who shine a light on the destruction as anti's is ironic at the least and bizarre at the worst. That hunters and fishermen buy this and parrot it is mind boggling. Without habitat, what do hunters and fishermen have left?

    An anti is someone who is against an activity such as hunting and fishing, like a PETA member. How that label got stuck to people who are for protecting habitat is beyond me.

    But what do you call someone who claims to be a hunter or fisherman but pushes for a project that causes massive habitat destruction? Do you think it was PETA types (the actual antis) who ruined the great salmon runs on the Columbia River? (The best king salmom producing system in the world before dams were built, runs in the millions) Or was it the people who decided to build the dams and salmon be ****ed because "we need cheap power and irrigation."

    It won't be antis who bring about the demise of hunting and fishing. It will be the lack of fish and game and places to hunt and fish them. And calling people who protest the destruction of that needed habitat "antis" will hasten the day when hunting and fishing will only be practiced in history books or in limited "farm type" situations where you pay to pretend you are still a hunter/gatherer.

    Any hunter or fisherman who doesn't lean to the green side is a fool.
    An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it.
    - Jef Mallett

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amigo Will View Post
    Alaska is the land and critters on the land and in the waters not the people anymore. Many can see a day when folks comming to Alaska might well say,heck it looks like LA
    Well stated...........Rep point sent.

  8. #8
    Member hodgeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Delta Junction AK
    Posts
    4,055

    Default

    While I haven't read that thread- there is only so much of Akres's/ Bushrat's point and counterpoint I can take after all- the leap of logic required to brand Rearden an "anti" is simply fantastical.

    To throw that word out there so freely either shows someone's unfamiliarity with who "real antis" are or a complete disrespect for other points of view essential to living in a democratic republic. To say that he's soft or that writing isn't an "honest day's work" is just sloppy debate tactics- if you can't best the facts, beat the man.

    I've got to say that of late the tone of some of these conversations has gotten bad...a lot of name calling simply because folks don't align with someone's very narrow bandwidth of thought. That's not the way the country is supposed to work. On any issue there should be the extreme ends having few folks with the bulk of the people in the middle- thinking for themselves. Now that our society lets others do their thinking for them- the extreme ends are chock full towing a surprisingly identical line while the thinking middle is dwindling. I think we'd all be better off if we turned off MSN/FOX News and picked up a good book or two. The polarization of our nation over the last twenty years is amazing...and disturbing.

    Rearden an "anti"? - in a pig's eye.

  9. #9
    Member sayak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central peninsula, between the K-rivers
    Posts
    5,788

    Default

    I have known Jim Rearden for years. I once took an extended trip up the Wood River Lakes system with him. He is not an "anti", he just has strong opinions. Just like other old time Alaskans, who are in the know about wildlife issues, are on both sides of the bear baiting controversy.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post
    In a discussion on the fisheries mgmt forum a member here called Jim Rearden an "anti":


    So what say you all, is Jim Rearden what the AOD member quoted above says he is because he penned that op-ed?
    [/SIZE][/FONT]
    On this FORUM if you don't agree with someone you call them a "Troll" or an "Anti". If one studies logic in English Composition, it is called: "Bandwagon" logic. It is the lowest level of invalid logic. Jim Rearden, was doing what most on this forum only can dream of, and he was doing it befor their daddy was born. Sad really, very sad.

  11. #11

    Wink

    It is all too convienent to cherry pick a single comment from an entire thread and use it in a different context....
    But in an effort to further this discussion, I would offer up additional thought. Old timers had their moment in the sun...they did their dead level best with what they had to work with. Rearden grew up and formulated his though process' and agenda in an Alaska far different from today...technologically speaking. His was a time when everything was calculated with a stubby pencil and speculation. A time before man landed on the moon, created computers and embraced engineering as a way to the future.
    He like all the others that have come before us, worked with what they had....

    To think that his workings will suffice today in the challenges that face Alaskan's is ludicrous...I repeat...ludicrous. Sure it makes for great winter time fun to sit around the fire and read of his and their exploits, but we must surely recognize their efforts for what they were...not what they are. We must look to the future...using their example and OUR tools...

    Do I differ from his opinion and thought process'....YOU BET!!! Do I believe Alaskan's can develop our resources in responsible manner? YOU BET!!!
    Do I think there are some content to sit around in a cabin, huddled around a wood stove, wearing animal skins for clothes, weaving baskets for trade and typing nonsense on a computer? YOU BET!!! And...I think that is Good for THAT person...but BAD..very BAD for the future if Alaskan's collectively decide to choose this lifestyle.
    But I would not fault a parent one ioda if they choose to train their kids in this manner and bring 'em up that way...It is a personal choice. Choose Wisely!!! We can use these new technologies, super computers and mans manchines to our benefit...or as some apparently do....gameboys and video monitors...and....(sigh) writing Op/Ed's to the local papers. Sheesh...
    "96% of all Internet Quotes are suspect and the remaining 4% are fiction."
    ~~Abraham Lincoln~~

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post
    In a discussion on the fisheries mgmt forum a member here called Jim Rearden an "anti":


    This opinion above stemmed from this op-ed by Jim Rearden:
    http://www.adn.com/2011/04/21/v-prin...etter-bet.html

    We can agree or disagree on numerous issues related to hunting and fishing and development. But it takes the cake really when some use the "Anti" label (and go even farther to denigrate someone) on a fellow hunter and longtime Alaskan just because they don't agree with him.

    So what say you all, is Jim Rearden what the AOD member quoted above says he is because he penned that op-ed?
    br,
    Is this about Rearden or the 'Res???
    "96% of all Internet Quotes are suspect and the remaining 4% are fiction."
    ~~Abraham Lincoln~~

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Kenai Peninsula
    Posts
    231

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sayak View Post
    I have known Jim Rearden for years. I once took an extended trip up the Wood River Lakes system with him. He is not an "anti", he just has strong opinions. Just like other old time Alaskans, who are in the know about wildlife issues, are on both sides of the bear baiting controversy.
    I think the word ANTI is used without understanding what is being attached to the prefix. ANTI-what? ANTI-hunting? ANTI-natural resource development? ANTI-Texas ...

    I think Jim Rearden is ANTI-something ... but not ANTI-hunter

    Having said that, I don't necessarily agree with what Jim says in the article. I am ANTI-greenie, ANTI-peta (animal rights activist) ... I don't think it's fair that my dog is more comfortable than me when we fly on a plane. The last time I checked, God gave man dominion over the earth. I am a strong believer in conservation (wise use) not preservation (no use).

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Truenorthed View Post
    I think Jim Rearden is ANTI-something ... but not ANTI-hunter
    Dang it all...Don't go trying to put it back into the original context as previously presented...you sir are gong to ruin the bushrat's fun.
    Of Course he is Anti-Development...anyone who has read his works can easily assess where he stood....
    An Anti....means something different to each of us...
    "96% of all Internet Quotes are suspect and the remaining 4% are fiction."
    ~~Abraham Lincoln~~

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Akres View Post
    Dang it all...Don't go trying to put it back into the original context as previously presented...you sir are gong to ruin the bushrat's fun.
    Of Course he is Anti-Development...anyone who has read his works can easily assess where he stood....
    An Anti....means something different to each of us...
    Another disgruntled member of the older establishment, that writes in a manner acceptable to a piece of trash paper. Slanted is as Slanted does; Ever notice the kind of articles written there? pure JUNK 99.99% of them.
    squab (probably of Scandinavian descent; skvabb, meaning "loose, fat flesh") is a young domestic pigeon or its meat

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Akres View Post
    br,
    Is this about Rearden or the 'Res???
    hmmm...No Response...I'll assume then you must be out gathering birch bark, watching the river ice, mending the dogs or some other important task required for man's survival. Get back to me when you have a free moment...got a couple of idea's I would like to bounce off you.
    "96% of all Internet Quotes are suspect and the remaining 4% are fiction."
    ~~Abraham Lincoln~~

  17. #17
    Member sayak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central peninsula, between the K-rivers
    Posts
    5,788

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Truenorthed View Post
    I think the word ANTI is used without understanding what is being attached to the prefix. ANTI-what? ANTI-hunting? ANTI-natural resource development? ANTI-Texas ...

    I think Jim Rearden is ANTI-something ... but not ANTI-hunter

    Having said that, I don't necessarily agree with what Jim says in the article. I am ANTI-greenie, ANTI-peta (animal rights activist) ... I don't think it's fair that my dog is more comfortable than me when we fly on a plane. The last time I checked, God gave man dominion over the earth. I am a strong believer in conservation (wise use) not preservation (no use).
    Yes, "anti-" is a very ambiguous term. I know that Jim is not anti-hunting, or anti-development, but he is anti-habitat destruction. I personally (to my shame) don't know a great deal about the Chuit proposal. I am well aware, however, that environmentalists are masters of spin and misinformation and fear tactics. Not saying Jim has bought into that.

  18. #18
    Member hodgeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Delta Junction AK
    Posts
    4,055

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Truenorthed View Post
    I think Jim Rearden is ANTI-something ... but not ANTI-hunter
    I think you're correct.... I believe he is "ANTI-Chuitna coal mine". Any other ideas or speculation about his means and motives is pointless. Let's give Jim (and the rest of us) credit for some rational thought about individual issues.

    He's written he's against the Chuitna development, I think we should take that at face value. To say that he's out of touch with modern Alaska, or "Anti Development", or "gone soft" is painting with a pretty broad brush- too broad a brush IMHO.

    I'm pretty dead set against the Chuitna thing- not because I'm "anti development", but because I just don't see the real long term benefit for Alaskans and that in the end we'll lose way more than we'll gain. If the debate were about meeting Alaska's future energy needs- I might have a different opinion (and I suppose even Rearden's could be as well).

    The fact my opinion (and coincidentally Rearden's) on this single issue lines up with some of the extreme Greenies does not mean I align with them on every issue,all the time (far from it actually). I think in the issue of fairness we need to give a little more credit to other parties for their opinions about issues rather than attempting to invalidate them as people simply because you happen to disagree.

    The only opinion I can't respect is one that was arrived at without consideration of the facts- whether I agree with it or not.

  19. #19
    Member Matt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    3,410

    Default

    Should probably just let this thread die as the man in question ain't here to defend himself...just sayin'.

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt View Post
    Should probably just let this thread die as the man in question ain't here to defend himself...just sayin'.
    I disagree, there are many here who can defend Jim Reardon very well.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •