For those of you who have read my blog for some time, you know that I work very hard at covering issues that directly and indirectly affect the sport of hunting. I provide for you links to stories taking place in many parts of the country. I also cover some stories in more detail, all a part of seeking the truth in matters that do matter.
It is my objective to present issues where I ask more questions than provide answers, after all, I don’t have all the answers. In asking questions of readers I hope to incite a higher level of thinking and encourage people to look at issues important to them. To do this, people need information. We all know that most media today fail to present all sides to a story. My aim is to bridge some of that gap. The most important aspect of all that I do has to based on truth.
Wildlife management is a science. It really isn’t something that should be controlled by politics but all too often is. Most of you know that more times than not, I will rely upon the truth backed by scientific evidence to support actions.
Any reader would be hard pressed to read through the over 2,000 articles I have posted on this blog to find name calling, insults, slanderous comments and the like done by me. As a matter of fact, when readers decide to leave comments here, which I encourage, they at times will resort to calling me names and offering nothing to the debate. My usual tactic in dealing with that is to email the person directly and request that they not use foul language and name calling. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t.
In a recent article I did about a conversation that took place in a Boise, Idaho restaurant, some may think that I have taken up with tactics of lying, slander and insinuation in order to further my own agenda. There is a difference between information I have presented and lying, slander and insinuation. All three of these that I mention are all rooted in one common theme – falsehoods. We all know what a lie is, or at least we used to. Today a lie is not necessarily a lie.
Slander on the other hand is when a person says things that defame and cause harm to a person’s reputation done maliciously and not based on any truth. To insinuate means to imply things that are not true, after all if you have the truth, what’s the point of making insinuating remarks.
I presented a story of one man overhearing a conversation in a public place. He wasn’t wiretapping someone’s telephone nor did he hide a recording device under the table to eavesdrop. He was so upset about the things that he heard he felt he had to make it known to the people. I can tell you that I was not this person’s first choice to break the story. Because he wanted to remain anonymous, other newspapers were skeptical about wanting to do a story this way. I gave him the opportunity to tell me the whole story and I listened.
I chose to write it for a number of reasons, none of which involve slander or insinuation. I presented the story as was told to me. I asked probing questions of the readers to incite them to think beyond the usual rhetoric we get from the press to see if this warrants further attention and scrutiny. I provided some corroborating evidence to show that this person was at the Red Lion on the day he said he was.
In my title of the breaking story I asked the question if supporters of a proposed citizen’s initiative where considering domestic terrorism to promote their cause. One could make an assumption that this was an insinuation or slanderous in nature. The problem with that assumption is it is supported by facts. Now the question remained as to what the definition of domestic terrorism is.
Yesterday I gave you that definition as it comes from the FBI website. You now must decide whether the conversation that took place that day fits that definition.
There is nothing slanderous about anything I have written to this point. I presented a story as told to me by an individual whom I determined to be believable. He had nothing to gain by doing this. He is not a member of any sportsman’s group, guide or outfitter nor is he an elk breeder or a rancher of any kind. He’s just a average Idahoan who believes that truth has to be told.
I didn’t fabricate this story. For those who have followed this debate from the first day it was reported that Dr. Rex Rammell’s elk had gotten out up until the present, you know that this entire debate I have spent writing and presenting known facts supported by science. I believe in truth and the power of it and will not stray from that.
I said from the beginning that I have no ax to grind with Mr. Clower and Mr. Marlor. They are strong advocates for what they believe in. For that alone a certain amount of respect has to be granted. For the good of the Idaho people and Americans everywhere, the events that took place that day have to be told. I’ve given you that. I’ve presented you with information and tools to form your own conclusions. That part is up to you.
*Previous Posts*
Are Supporters Of Idaho Elk Initiative Considering Domestic Terrorism?
Corroborating Evidence In Idaho Domestic Terror Threats
What Is Domestic Terrorism?
Tom Remington
