Unless I missed it, I was pretty discouraged to not see a peep from a lot of Conservation Orgs (RMEF, specifically stands out) on this whole reconciliation debacle.
A few peeps that might have been missed.
The Boone and Crockett Club released the following statement today regarding federal public lands:The U.S. federal public land estate is an American legacy the Boone and Crockett Club will support forever. Since our founding in 1887, whenever the suggestion has been made that public land be...
www.boone-crockett.org
US federal public lands are home to the majority of bighorn, desert bighorn, and Dall’s sheep in the country. The Wild Sheep Foundation (WSF) cannot sacrifice these lands any more than we could sacrifice these wild sheep that are our life’s mission. We are committed equally to the entirety of...
www.wildsheepfoundation.org
Two members of the U.S. House of Representatives, one from each major political party, announced the formation of a bipartisan congressional coalition to conserve public lands and expand public access. Rep. Gabe Vasquez (D-NM) and Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-MT) made the announcement at a gathering in...
www.rmef.org
And a lot of "peeps" occurring on Capitol Hill from Conservation Orgs that are easy to miss. Suffice to say, the defeat of the Amodei Amendment was due to work on a lot of fronts, from a lot of people and a lot of groups, front facing and behind the scenes. It's how things get done.
I'll try to explain an observation I see/hear often.
It is interesting to see the criticism that seems to come about groups who do a LOT of work on these issues, yet get criticized because they aren't doing it on the front-facing platforms of social media. There is value in the social media efforts, and there is also a lot of value in using their relationships and connections to work in DC or elsewhere.
I've been very involved in this stuff the last couple months and every group I have communicate with has been working on this stuff. I would say the three groups whose statements I linked above have more sway with Zinke and Daines than just about any hunting/conservation groups out there.
We, as the public, need to keep the front facing pressure on elected officials when issues come up. We also need groups with connections to get things done via other channels. The times when things have changed course, during my thirty years of engagement, has been when there is no "path of least resistance," both public facing resistance and within the halls of Congress or State Capitols.
In today's world of IG and FB being high volume on the front facing side, it seems folks assume that since an expected action didn't cross their feed, that means that the only actions occurring are those they see in their feeds on the platform they spend most time on. An example being when an IG commenter tagged me as a "Johnny Come Lately" to the public land issue. They stated they had only seen it on our IG page over the last couple months. Their idea of what involvement I had was limited to where they consume most of their content, IG, a platform I hate and I really don't have any interest in learning how to use. Thus, they concluded, understandably and incorrectly, that I was not very involved in public land issues until it was convenient to do so.
As to the companies
@ForkyFreak mentioned, I haven't asked. My contracts with them are pretty simple. I'll paraphrase, "We pay you to keep doing what you are doing in public lands and conservation. Be our eyes and ears and represent us, and hunters, in the way you always have."
So, I go about doing what we always have, knowing that's their expectation of us. I know they are committed to the public land advocacy, due to them "hiring" us to be an effective advocate for hunters in the public land space. Without their support, our platforms would not exist and the impact we have would be based on whatever noise I could make by myself.
The contracts with those companies don't have any deliverables that count social media posts, likes, views, or any of the stuff folks like to say are the driving motivation on our end. The measurables/PKIs that they have for a contract with us are probably a challenge for marketing methodologies to measure. I suspect our contracts could easily be cut for lack of connection to selling product. But they keep renewing contracts, believing their support for a public land/conservation advocacy platform is a good investment in hunting, not based on how many units it sells.
www.facebook.com
