The problem with humans

[Free Press Editor Joe Spear]

I was disgusted to read John Cross's column on Sunday about the cleanup some lake residents and others must do after ice fishing season. Hundreds of bags of human waste. Of course, the suggestion was made that a law be enacted for ice houses to have some kind of toilet facilities if they are so big etc...I can hear some say this is the government stepping in where it need not be, but what can be done to discourage, greatly, this kind of "dumping"
If you haven't read the column, here it is http://is.gd/oHGb

[Bob Jentges]

I was disgusted to read John Cross's column on Sunday about the cleanup some lake residents and others must do after ice fishing season. Hundreds of bags of human waste. Of course, the suggestion was made that a law be enacted for ice houses to have some kind of toilet facilities if they are so big etc...I can hear some say this is the government stepping in where it need not be, but what can be done to discourage, greatly, this kind of "dumping"
If you haven't read the column, here it is http://is.gd/oHGb

I think it has been evident that I am not a big government kind of guy, and favor individual personal responsibility. But when individuals demonstrate such an excess of disgusting, irresponsible behavior as pointed out in the Cross column I think it is appropriate for the government to step in with action.

I am old enough to remember visiting my aunt & uncle's farm as a young boy. They did not have indoor plumbing. In the winter months, when it was too cold to use the outhouse, they had a white enamel chamber pot (with a cover) that we could sit on to do what we needed to do. John's suggestion of using something similar should not create an unreasonable burdon on those who choose to stay overnight in their fish house. If they do not comply, some type citation and/or fine would be OK with me.

[John Cross]

The lakes mentioned in the story were very heavily fished this year and I'm sure that most of the stuff left out on the ice was the result of a very small minority of those folks. Unfortunately, it puts the whole lot in a bad light.

There already are laws on the books that make it illegal to litter. The permanent ice houses may be exacerbating the problem a bit and maybe another law to require overnighters to have some sort of "facility" available might help a bit.

But finally, it all comes down to personal responsibility and unfortunately, that seems to be a concept that eludes too many people.

[Dan Conner]

The lakes mentioned in the story were very heavily fished this year and I'm sure that most of the stuff left out on the ice was the result of a very small minority of those folks. Unfortunately, it puts the whole lot in a bad light.

There already are laws on the books that make it illegal to litter. The permanent ice houses may be exacerbating the problem a bit and maybe another law to require overnighters to have some sort of "facility" available might help a bit.

But finally, it all comes down to personal responsibility and unfortunately, that seems to be a concept that eludes too many people.

I read the article and find it objectionable as well. However, I took objection to one small paragraph you wrote: "Now, some undoubtedly will object to being painted with such a broad brush. But like it or not, ice anglers have long had a reputation for being slobs and leaving all kinds of garbage behind on the ice." I thought this was a generalization that was not appropriate and added nothing to the story. I don't ice fish, but I know several people who do. They, and I, have not known ice fishermen as "slobs". This is the first I and they have heard of that. I do think it is important for the paper to avoid sweeping unsubstantiated generalizations about a class of people, such as ice fishermen.

You are totally right about taking personal responsibility. However, using that phrase is simple, but getting everyone to take it, is not. Like most all situations I am aware of, it is the few who ruin it for everyone else. That is a point I mentioned in the uncased gun debate earlier. It ends up that laws and restrictions end up being placed on everyone for the actions of a few. Maybe another way to handle it would be to bill all ice house owners, on the lake, for the cleanup and administrative costs. Then, there would be more of an incentive to clean up their mess and report ones who cause the mess. I understand all ice houses have a license number on them? Then, people on other lakes, who are responsible won't have to pay the consequences.

[Dan Conner]

The lakes mentioned in the story were very heavily fished this year and I'm sure that most of the stuff left out on the ice was the result of a very small minority of those folks. Unfortunately, it puts the whole lot in a bad light.

There already are laws on the books that make it illegal to litter. The permanent ice houses may be exacerbating the problem a bit and maybe another law to require overnighters to have some sort of "facility" available might help a bit.

But finally, it all comes down to personal responsibility and unfortunately, that seems to be a concept that eludes too many people.I totally agree with you John, as indicated in my above reply.

[Robert Redding]

Personal responsibility is only as good as an individual's education on any given topic. I'd like to think "common sense" matters. But without education, common sense is learned through observation and experience. Some will always think their actions cause no harm when there's no direct observation of the effect.

Septic systems are a great example. A lot of folks off the municipal treatment grid believe their plumbing works fine if they don't have sludge shooting-out the basement drains with each flush. Meanwhile, too many "working" septics still drain straight into surface waters.

It'll take time, but education's the key. If that doesn't work, the problem will fix itself when all the fish are dead. I'm half-kidding. :)

[Bob Jentges]

Without entering a stage of analysis paralysis, I agree "common sense" and "education" do matter.

But when observing litter left on a lake by humans it should not take but a few minutes to educate competent people to understand that is not acceptable behavior. An adult with a child (or another adult) can do it with a sentence or two as they approach or leave the lake. An adult by himself/herself most likely has already been educated about littering by others, therfore "personal responsibility" is the answer in almost every case.

[Dan Conner]

Personal responsibility is only as good as an individual's education on any given topic. I'd like to think "common sense" matters. But without education, common sense is learned through observation and experience. Some will always think their actions cause no harm when there's no direct observation of the effect.

Septic systems are a great example. A lot of folks off the municipal treatment grid believe their plumbing works fine if they don't have sludge shooting-out the basement drains with each flush. Meanwhile, too many "working" septics still drain straight into surface waters.

It'll take time, but education's the key. If that doesn't work, the problem will fix itself when all the fish are dead. I'm half-kidding. :)Surprisingly, I agree with Bob. I don't think education is a major factor in stopping the littering at our lakes. I think it belongs more squarely in the realm of CARING. Leveling significant fines might be a way of "educating" some of the offenders.

[Matt Christianson]

As an avid ice fisherman I concur. Perhaps the DNR could map permanant icehouse via GPS and check the place out after the house is removed. Every house needs a license so ithey would be able to track down the litterer and present him with a hefty fine.

[Bob Jentges]

Surprisingly, I agree with Bob. I don't think education is a major factor in stopping the littering at our lakes. I think it belongs more squarely in the realm of CARING. Leveling significant fines might be a way of "educating" some of the offenders.

Dan, apparrantly you were so surprised to agree with me that you quoted Robert Redding's post, rather than quoting my post!:)

[Dan Conner]

Dan, apparrantly you were so surprised to agree with me that you quoted Robert Redding's post, rather than quoting my post!:)Bob, apparently you were so excited about my error, that you forgot how to spell A P P A R E N T L Y!

[Bob Jentges]

Bob, apparently you were so excited about my error, that you forgot how to spell A P P A R E N T L Y!

I think your "error" was more confusing to readers than my misspelled word, but maybe we are both grasping at straws here.:)

[Dan Conner]

I think your "error" was more confusing to readers than my misspelled word, but maybe we are both grasping at straws here.:)Real mature Bob....I'll bet you your error was bigger than mine? Come on - grow up! Your maturity doesn't seem to reflect your years of age. As far as more confusing to readers...you are easily confused and A P P A R E N T L Y distracted.

[Bob Jentges]

Real mature Bob....I'll bet you your error was bigger than mine? Come on - grow up! Your maturity doesn't seem to reflect your years of age. As far as more confusing to readers...you are easily confused and A P P A R E N T L Y distracted.

Dan, or if you would you prefer I use your alias "Anonymous", obviously your quoting the wrong post when apparently intending to reply to me did not confuse me. I simply tried to clarify your state of confusion for other readers in the event they might have been confused by what you later admitted was your "error".

I still hold the opinion that in this particular situation my using one incorrect letter in spelling a 10 letter word should not have been as confusing to most readers as your "error". But I will acknowledge that others may think different about the degree of our respective errors.

Before you strike the last word, I will say that if you do not want to agree with my suggestion: "Maybe we are both grasping at straws here", maybe you are the one that needs to "grow up"!

[Dan Conner]

Dan, or if you would you prefer I use your alias "Anonymous", obviously your quoting the wrong post when apparently intending to reply to me did not confuse me. I simply tried to clarify your state of confusion for other readers in the event they might have been confused by what you later admitted was your "error".

I still hold the opinion that in this particular situation my using one incorrect letter in spelling a 10 letter word should not have been as confusing to most readers as your "error". But I will acknowledge that others may think different about the degree of our respective errors.

Before you strike the last word, I will say that if you do not want to agree with my suggestion: "Maybe we are both grasping at straws here", maybe you are the one that needs to "grow up"!Bob, you are such a charitable minded blogger... Again, you're so worried about others reading my blog? Of course there was no criticism intended... Just more good old-fashioned reader assistance. However, what you said was, "I think your "error" was more confusing to readers than my misspelled word, but maybe we are both grasping at straws here."

I think comparing errors is petty, but if you really feel it is important, go ahead. I will continue to think it was very petty and you can go ahead and continue feeling my error was bigger than yours...big deal. Also, I think you are arrogant when you tell me that you could understand what I meant, but probably not other readers. Bob, maybe you aren't as smart as you think, and others aren't as stupid as you think. We have both made many grammatical and spelling errors. You trivialize the debate and message when you quibble over such diminimous issues.

[Bob Jentges]

No doubt I have made many "...grammatical and spelling errors..." and expect I will make more if I continue to post. I agree those type errors in a venue such as the Freep are not critical unless they change the meaning of the post.

While discussing "errors", the next time you see "Anonymous" please tell him Justice Sotomayor was confirmed on a 68-31 vote--9 Republicans voted for her.

[Dan Conner]

No doubt I have made many "...grammatical and spelling errors..." and expect I will make more if I continue to post. I agree those type errors in a venue such as the Freep are not critical unless they change the meaning of the post.

While discussing "errors", the next time you see "Anonymous" please tell him Justice Sotomayor was confirmed on a 68-31 vote--9 Republicans voted for her.What's this about Anonymous? What are you talking about? You replied once before about that. Also, what are you talking about? The Sotomayor confirmation....? What is your point about the number voting for/against her? I don't know what you're talking about. I have never mentioned anything about the Sotomayor confirmation.

If you are trying to debate about Sotomayor, I have no idea what your point is. I have not said anything about her, anonymous or otherwise. However, I think this point is another diminimous issue irrelevant to anything significant. You seem to get so mired in trivia that you are unable to see any "big picture." You waste so much time...on what? The number of votes, or something? What's your point about 9 Republicans? Were they the only ones with any brains or conscience? Bob, I think you need to get back to the issues instead of miring yorself in silly little irrelevant numbers..

[Bob Jentges]

Dan, I was referring to a 1/28/2010 @ 1:31 pm post in the Electronic Edition of the Free Press by "Anonymous" that read, in part: "...Sotomayor was not voted for by a single republican...". I wanted to correct the record.

I assumed you were using the alias "Anonymous". I violated one of my own long standing rules i.e. "Never assume anything", and I am paying for it. I appologize.

[Dan Conner]

Dan, I was referring to a 1/28/2010 @ 1:31 pm post in the Electronic Edition of the Free Press by "Anonymous" that read, in part: "...Sotomayor was not voted for by a single republican...". I wanted to correct the record.

I assumed you were using the alias "Anonymous". I violated one of my own long standing rules i.e. "Never assume anything", and I am paying for it. I appologize.Well, anonymous was not me. I would appreciate it if you would ask me before you make these kind of accusations. Not very appropriate for someone used to operating in a court of law. You say you are paying for it? How?