birdseye
Active member
Why did your Org NOT get involved with the CC fight?
a question for the Wyoming Wildlife Federation (Corner Crossing)
- Thread starter birdseye
- Start date
birdseye
Active member
I have asked their leadership directly. They don't want to discuss it. Just thought that maybe one of their common members who are signed up here on HT could fill in the blanks.
No biggie...fact is, the WWF was asked to join the CC fight...they declined. Why?
Let me add more than snark.
I want the wildlife federations to be working on wildlife conservation at a landscape level. I want healthy fish and wildlife populations thriving on high quality, well-connected habitats. Achieving that goal requires developing and maintaining good working relationships with landowners, because 50% of Wyoming is privately owned. IMO, that should be the priority of an organization with a mission like WWF. Hunting and fishing access is a central tenet of BHA's mission, so it stands that they would take the lead on the corner crossing issue. I don't want or expect organizations like WWF to take up peripheral issues to their primary mission that may jeopardize work on central tenets, things like protecting high priority wildlife habitat and maintaining connectivity. I don't think we should expect every organization we support to engage every hunting-adjacent issue that arises.
I want the wildlife federations to be working on wildlife conservation at a landscape level. I want healthy fish and wildlife populations thriving on high quality, well-connected habitats. Achieving that goal requires developing and maintaining good working relationships with landowners, because 50% of Wyoming is privately owned. IMO, that should be the priority of an organization with a mission like WWF. Hunting and fishing access is a central tenet of BHA's mission, so it stands that they would take the lead on the corner crossing issue. I don't want or expect organizations like WWF to take up peripheral issues to their primary mission that may jeopardize work on central tenets, things like protecting high priority wildlife habitat and maintaining connectivity. I don't think we should expect every organization we support to engage every hunting-adjacent issue that arises.
WyoCoalMiner
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2024
- Messages
- 359
Could not agree more. Only problem is WWF is more than happy to dip its wick in plenty of other hunting issues that are not necessarily about wildlife health or habitat. My inclination is their lack of involvement has more to due with LO relationships than anything.
BuzzH
Well-known member
That's the part I have trouble with as well.
I also believe that they've taken this "we all need to be on the same side of the table singing folk music together" a bit too far. Not every issue can be worked out without opposition, confrontation, and disagreement...just the way it is. I agree with @Oak that maintaining working relationships with the great landowners we have is very, very important. I will say that I'm humbled nearly every year at the graciousness of some of the landowners in Wyoming and how they regard the hunting public. Conversely, I'm also appalled and shocked at the callousness and mean-spirited way some landowners talk about hunters, its out of line and in most case flat out lies.
But in this particular corner crossing case, we weren't exactly dealing with the cream of the crop as far as landowners go. I think many landowners would agree, but I see why they sort of needed to stick together on the issue too.
Not every organization is going to have the mission statement and/or bandwidth to tackle every issue.
That being said, it was sort of surprising the lack of support from some orgs on corner crossing and in some cases actively working against it.
