How can we change from defense to offense?

[lifeisgoodsteve]

Hi All,

As someone who's been very active in my previous County politics regarding land use issues (non-hunting related), I can say from experience that playing defense all the time is simply brutal and demoralizing. Facing barrage after barrage of attacks with each new anti-.... measure or campaign which tries to disguise its real intentions in some higher moral vision.

While I love shooting the shit and "solving the problems of the world" as much as the next guy, I'm also very much a pragmatist who feels the need to convert theory into practical application. Being a late-onset hunter starting a few years ago at the young age of 48, I'd love to hear from you veterans:

What can pro-actively be done to support public land access and hunting so we can shift from defense to offense?

From my experience, talking with and knowing a couple County/State politicians, grass roots mobilization of calls, word of mouth, emails, etc. is very powerful. Groups have built those networks to defend but how can we leverage that for greater protections in concrete ways?

Thanks,

Steve

 

[1_pointer]

 

[Trial153]

Money and organizations that are designed to negate effects of lobbies like ALC and ALEC. More money to counter the extraction lobby. More money to counter the Ranching lobbies.
Then some sertraline to counteract act the depression that is sure to set in.

 

[one ate E grain]

Actually money isn't the magic elixir, people are.

Coordinated efforts can leverage influence. Things like coordinated phone calls. If you found 300 people willing to call, and they all called one senator's office on the same day, that senator would for sure take time out from fund raising to find out why all those people were calling his aids. Many times small special interest groups wield outsized interest.

 

[lifeisgoodsteve]

From my experience I'd agree that both grassroots advocacy and funds are both important.

There are existing orgs like BHA out there helping to mobilize the grassroots, though it seems that the vast majority of the time we are being notified and asked to call politicians in response to a continuous string of threats.

That said, I also appreciate that there are active efforts by RMEF and others to buy land to open up access as well as hunter recruitment to build that grassroots network.

For example, if we worked even through an existing organization, what pro-active measures could be put forth to enact positive change or protect public lands, access, etc.?

One good example was in this most recent election Utah passed a constitutional amendment to protect the right to fish and hunt, explained as:

"The amendment established a state constitutional right to hunt and fish for the people of Utah. The amendment subjects the right to hunt and fish to statutes that, according to the amendment's text, promote wildlife conservation and management and preserve the future of hunting and fishing. The measure declared that hunting and fishing are the preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife in Utah.[1]"

I like that it was a positive, pro-active measure, though am certain that it's just one option.

If there were other ways, then we could funnel those ideas through existing orgs with full-time staff and then follow up with grassroots direct communication/advocacy with local politicians, fundraising etc..

Maybe this is already being done and if so I'm happy to support them. Already a member of BHA/RMEF and reach out to the politicians when things come up, but have only seen a small amount of the pro-active measures. Again, I could be ignorant of them.

Cheers

s

 

[Luke_with_a_lab]

In my opinion we need more groups like BHA, etc, exept they need to be strictly about trying to influence legislatures. At the end of the day money talks. We need coordinated fundrasing campaigns and events. Then put those dollars exclusively into lobbying. If the other side can buy poloticians there is no reason we cant do the same.

 

[lifeisgoodsteve]

In my opinion we need more groups like BHA, etc, exept they need to be strictly about trying to influence legislatures. At the end of the day money talks. We need coordinated fundrasing campaigns and events. Then put those dollars exclusively into lobbying. If the other side can buy poloticians there is no reason we cant do the same.

In my experience with local advocacy in other areas, the politicians definitely respond to:

• Donors (to help them get or stay elected)
• Voters (squeaky wheels)

Also, I agree that if possible, working through existing orgs that have existing staff and systems makes the most sense, plus having those orgs support each other and work together on specific issues when there is an alignment of cause.

Or as Randy mentioned in his podcast intro, is there a need for a new org that is structured to allow for political advocacy as its primary purpose?

 

[Luke_with_a_lab]

In my experience with local advocacy in other areas, the politicians definitely respond to:

• Donors (to help them get or stay elected)
• Voters (squeaky wheels)

Also, I agree that if possible, working through existing orgs that have existing staff and systems makes the most sense, plus having those orgs support each other and work together on specific issues when there is an alignment of cause.

Or as Randy mentioned in his podcast intro, is there a need for a new org that is structured to allow for political advocacy as its primary purpose?

Or as Randy mentioned in his podcast intro, is there a need for a new org that is structured to allow for political advocacy as its primary purpose?

In regards to the quote above, IMO we need to act on creating a new organization for this purpose as soon as possible in order to have it operational and monetaraly functional by the next election cycle

 

[Big Fin]

The game has changed a lot with Citizen's United and other cases that have allowed immense money to flow into not just elections, but buying policy.

We are behind the curve in every aspect, from funding, to expertise, to political infrastructure. It is going to take a lot of effort and money to catch up.

I love the grassroots work done by state and local wildlife groups, BHA on a more national level, and RMEF being the quiet behind the scenes operator. Yet, none of those are enough and none of those let us play offense.

Once a bill is introduced, you are likely now on defense. Bills get introduced because lobbyists are working the legislatures in the times between elections and legislative sessions. We don't have any year-round infrastructure to be building relationships, working to craft new bills, or funding the things that make a difference in the new age of "policy for purchase."

A bill gets introduced, the grassroots folks are rallied to the cause, calls are made to folks with whom we have relationships, but we are now in full defensive mode. Our formal groups can only do so much without compromising their non-profit status. Our volunteers have jobs, businesses, families, and the obligations of life whereby they cannot live in state Capitols for months on end. Thus even our defense comes up short in many instances.

I've been in this volunteer advocacy gig for 25 years. The time has come that we need to fund and build the political infrastructure to compete. We need a group in every state that has two or three full-time employees who know how the systems work, who the power brokers are, and have them building relationships and flexing our collective muscle.

I doubt a group, hunters, the majority of which in my state complain about a $5 fee increase, are inclined to fund such an operation. Just a reality of how it is. Too many of us wish for yesterday, which I wish for also, but wishing for yesterday doesn't provide a very bright tomorrow.

Over the last few months, I've leaned on some who have been professionals in this game. They all tell me the same thing - get the money for the infrastructure, staff up, keep a reliable funding source in place, and then your grassroots and numbers will mean something. Until then, you are just a bunch of disorganized folks bitching on Facebook and continuing to vote for the folks who are laying the pipe to you on these issues.

As much as I don't want to hear that assessment, I've come to conclude it is correct. I've also started the process of seeing where such funding could be had. I've talk to some of the pros to find out what the costs are to have a lobbyist.

The landscape of hunting, conservation, and public access are at the most critical crossroads of my adult life. I don't intend to let it happen without trying something new. Without robbing a bank or wining a lottery (without buying a ticket), I am not sure where the funding will come from.

For the time being I will continue to use our platforms to try play some defense. I will try to interject some offense into the discussion, but right now the demands of playing defense have not allowed for much offensive strategy.

The opposition has shown the path to take. Just whether or not hunters will make it a priority and do what is needed to follow that path that is working so well for the other groups.

 

[Pucky Freak]

Where I live there are lots of people who like to hunt and fish and otherwise prefer to be left alone.

Then there are a few small groups of people who want to make money. They are determined, organized, and strategic. These groups probably have x5 as much political influence because they are willing to play that game to get what they want. It feels like an impossible challenge to go up against them. And this is in a state with no public land to speak of, and little at stake.

Going back to posts 2-4, it’s not that we need $, it’s that we are not motivated by money when the other players in this game are.

 

[DouglasR]

Quit worrying about losing your honey holes and take all your friends hunting ‍
it seems to me that one of the “anti’s” most valuable weapons is their ability to influence the indifferent’s.
You hunters have to get to them first.

 

[lifeisgoodsteve]

I've been in this volunteer advocacy gig for 25 years. The time has come that we need to fund and build the political infrastructure to compete. We need a group in every state that has two or three full-time employees who know how the systems work, who the power brokers are, and have them building relationships and flexing our collective muscle

Over the last few months, I've leaned on some who have been professionals in this game. They all tell me the same thing - get the money for the infrastructure, staff up, keep a reliable funding source in place, and then your grassroots and numbers will mean something. Until then, you are just a bunch of disorganized folks bitching on Facebook and continuing to vote for the folks who are laying the pipe to you on these issues.

Ok, great. That assessment makes total sense. Interestingly, I listened to your MT 143 podcast intro after my first post here, so clearly you're way ahead of me. As you mention, this dynamic is not unique to hunting and conservation so it's time we put our big boy pants on and play for real, as I just don't have the patience to sit around and theorize or complain.

I really like the idea of putting a high level outline/plan for such an org and realistically looking at feasibility. What successful model that's out there can we emulate and adapt to our purposes? What would it take for funds/staff/board to launch & sustain? Funding sources and potential collaborations, etc...

My close friend was one of the consultants who helped BHA get started up and brother has been in the non-profit world for a couple decades. So I can offer at least some volunteer support, though don't have the direct lobbyist connections or experience.

Are some folks already working on this so we should hang tight and support when it starts to get fleshed out a bit?

If not, then I'm sure we could pull together some experts with complementary experience to volunteer as an exploratory group to put together an initial high level plan, assess feasibility and potential path(s) forward. Not saying I'd be the right guy for this group, but in my mind it needs to get done and happy to support as I can.

 

[Big Fin]

This will require some strong organizations, in each state. Given how this is happening more at the state legislative level and these relationships are state/local and not national, more benefit will be obtained from focusing on each state.

For example, to staff three people in Montana, hire the proper level of consultants (usually attorneys and lobbyists), office, computers, travel, communications, etc. it is probably a $400-500K annual hit, just for Montana. That is a huge amount of money that many small local non-profits would love to have.

If one is to do this effectively, it can't be a bake sale funded operation. It cannot rely strictly on volunteers. It needs the best and most capable to represent the cause. Hire talented professionals who scare the shit out of some people who just assume hunters and anglers will always be this disconnected group of great people who have no political interest.

There can be coordination of the many state groups, but as soon as a Montana person starts to try help in the regional issues of Tennessee, you end up with huge culture differences in our hunting traditions, our issues, and our understanding of the history that has brought each state to its current situation.

Given how much of my time has been absorbed over the last two months, another full day filming civics lessons tomorrow, this idea has moved up my priority list. Not interested in another 501 (c)(3). I'm talking a full-blown 501(c)(4) and maybe another 501(c)(6) for any industry groups who want to help out. Donations are not tax-deductible, but you can play the political game without concern.

Once this Montana session is over, I know a good number of Montana folks who are interested in this idea. And I think among all of us and our contacts, we could find the funding. Too bad to think that amount of money would have to go to political battles rather than access or conservation, but if we don't get up to speed on the political game generations of work on access and conservation is going to be bartered away in the repayment of political debts.

 

[Luke_with_a_lab]

Ok, great. That assessment makes total sense. Interestingly, I listened to your MT 143 podcast intro after my first post here, so clearly you're way ahead of me. As you mention, this dynamic is not unique to hunting and conservation so it's time we put our big boy pants on and play for real, as I just don't have the patience to sit around and theorize or complain.

I really like the idea of putting a high level outline/plan for such an org and realistically looking at feasibility. What successful model that's out there can we emulate and adapt to our purposes? What would it take for funds/staff/board to launch & sustain? Funding sources and potential collaborations, etc...

My close friend was one of the consultants who helped BHA get started up and brother has been in the non-profit world for a couple decades. So I can offer at least some volunteer support, though don't have the direct lobbyist connections or experience.

Are some folks already working on this so we should hang tight and support when it starts to get fleshed out a bit?

If not, then I'm sure we could pull together some experts with complementary experience to volunteer as an exploratory group to put together an initial high level plan, assess feasibility and potential path(s) forward. Not saying I'd be the right guy for this group, but in my mind it needs to get done and happy to support as I can.

A few ideas:

1.
(A.) Rally as many of the the youtube/ social media hunting power houses as possible: Newburg, Meateater, Into High Country, Western Hunter, etc, etc etc. Between all of these guys that is a huge base of people to start talking to.
(B.) Take the time to explain the situation, simply but in enough detail it can be understood
(C.) Ask all said people to join new lobbying organization
(D.) Ask for a $100 donation/ year. If 5k people give $100 that comes out to 500k. Thats a good start.
(E.) Target via elections, the politicians doing them most damage to public land/hunting/access.
(F.) Lobby/ Go on offense introducing our own bills


2.
There has got to be very wealthy individuals out there who would be sympathetic to our cause. Perhaps we can find these "whales" and bring them on board. They have alot of money and potentially have a fair amount of clout or connections we will need going forward.

3.
To expand on the "whale" idea; There has to be a number of companies out there that are desperate for good PR and publicity. Get these companies on board. Perhaps the ever villanized oil companies/ mining companies, etc. They have more money than god and often need a PR win. To go back to @Big Fin's point, this would require full time employees working on relationships and tracking down leads.


I for one would love to volunteer my time, I live in MT and have a a fair amount of free time. If Randy wants to lead the charge I'll fall in line behind. If he doesnt we do need a personn to spearhead the project. Ideas are welcome. I fear if we dont do something we'll find ourselves a few years down the road and see that there is no coming back.

 

[David Gough]

This will require some strong organizations, in each state. Given how this is happening more at the state legislative level and these relationships are state/local and not national, more benefit will be obtained from focusing on each state.

For example, to staff three people in Montana, hire the proper level of consultants (usually attorneys and lobbyists), office, computers, travel, communications, etc. it is probably a $400-500K annual hit, just for Montana. That is a huge amount of money that many small local non-profits would love to have.

If one is to do this effectively, it can't be a bake sale funded operation. It cannot rely strictly on volunteers. It needs the best and most capable to represent the cause. Hire talented professionals who scare the shit out of some people who just assume hunters and anglers will always be this disconnected group of great people who have no political interest.

There can be coordination of the many state groups, but as soon as a Montana person starts to try help in the regional issues of Tennessee, you end up with huge culture differences in our hunting traditions, our issues, and our understanding of the history that has brought each state to its current situation.

Given how much of my time has been absorbed over the last two months, another full day filming civics lessons tomorrow, this idea has moved up my priority list. Not interested in another 501 (c)(3). I'm talking a full-blown 501(c)(4) and maybe another 501(c)(6) for any industry groups who want to help out. Donations are not tax-deductible, but you can play the political game without concern.

Once this Montana session is over, I know a good number of Montana folks who are interested in this idea. And I think among all of us and our contacts, we could find the funding. Too bad to think that amount of money would have to go to political battles rather than access or conservation, but if we don't get up to speed on the political game generations of work on access and conservation is going to be bartered away in the repayment of political debts.

If you haven't reached out to the Coalition for Nevada's Wildlife yet, they could give you a breakdown of their trials and tribulations as a 501(4)c for wildlife. I'm sure you have the contacts to do so, but if not I would be more that happy to make the connection.

 

[Tradewind]

This will require some strong organizations, in each state. Given how this is happening more at the state legislative level and these relationships are state/local and not national, more benefit will be obtained from focusing on each state.

For example, to staff three people in Montana, hire the proper level of consultants (usually attorneys and lobbyists), office, computers, travel, communications, etc. it is probably a $400-500K annual hit, just for Montana. That is a huge amount of money that many small local non-profits would love to have.

If one is to do this effectively, it can't be a bake sale funded operation. It cannot rely strictly on volunteers. It needs the best and most capable to represent the cause. Hire talented professionals who scare the shit out of some people who just assume hunters and anglers will always be this disconnected group of great people who have no political interest.

There can be coordination of the many state groups, but as soon as a Montana person starts to try help in the regional issues of Tennessee, you end up with huge culture differences in our hunting traditions, our issues, and our understanding of the history that has brought each state to its current situation.

Given how much of my time has been absorbed over the last two months, another full day filming civics lessons tomorrow, this idea has moved up my priority list. Not interested in another 501 (c)(3). I'm talking a full-blown 501(c)(4) and maybe another 501(c)(6) for any industry groups who want to help out. Donations are not tax-deductible, but you can play the political game without concern.

Once this Montana session is over, I know a good number of Montana folks who are interested in this idea. And I think among all of us and our contacts, we could find the funding. Too bad to think that amount of money would have to go to political battles rather than access or conservation, but if we don't get up to speed on the political game generations of work on access and conservation is going to be bartered away in the repayment of political debts.

Seems easy to me. I can think of no one better suited nor more persuasive than Buzz as your lead lobbyist. Back him up w/ said attorneys. Turn him lose in Helena. You'll get a lot of bang for your buck'.

 

[lifeisgoodsteve]

With the right structure, mission, proven folks behind it and lots of hard work, I also believe funding is possible.

Starting at the state level also makes total sense with Montana being a natural opportunity for a pilot program.

With the combination of high profile industry experts, hunting companies and a long hunting and outdoors history it does seem like it gain gain traction.


Randy,
If the main purpose is focusing on political advocacy and lobbying, did I read correctly that there is a 50% spending limit on political donations for a 501C4?

The NRA is one so there must be a way to do it.

Where I was active locally in politics, the County Farm Bureau created a separate PAC or Super Pac (don’t remember which) to engage more directly in local politics.

If the main purpose is to fill the gap of existing organizations, to focus specifically on politics, I wonder why the lobby experts say about a super pac?

cheers,

S

 

[1_pointer]

Where I live there are lots of people who like to hunt and fish and otherwise prefer to be left alone.

Then there are a few small groups of people who want to make money. They are determined, organized, and strategic. These groups probably have x5 as much political influence because they are willing to play that game to get what they want. It feels like an impossible challenge to go up against them. And this is in a state with no public land to speak of, and little at stake.

Going back to posts 2-4, it’s not that we need $, it’s that we are not motivated by money when the other players in this game are.

Randy has explained why it boils down to money. Not making it for the supporters/organization, but to hire full time pros to do the job. Passionate volunteers are always gonna have rough row to hoe going up against paid professionals, especially if they are just as passionate about their stance.

 

[thusby]

I have to deal with lobbyists semi-regularly in my industry and you are spot on Randy.

 

[longbow51]

For someone who knows how to do it (I sure don't) why not do a poll of who would give $50, $100, etc? Time for people to put up or shut up. You can't buy 2 boxes of ammo for a hundred bucks.