How can we change from defense to offense?

[1_pointer]

That'll be a short list...

 

[Ben Lamb]

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.

To build off of this, there are existing examples of how coordination can work through affiliated structure organizations such as the National Wildlife Federation & BHA - all with local chapters/affiliates who do this work already (State Wildlife federations have traditionally filled this role since the late 1930's & NWF trying to be the parent organization that coordinates, etc).

But the 501 (C)3 structure limits those groups to roughly 10% of their budget being allowable for lobbying activities. Trade organizations have no such limits, as they organize under different status.

(C)4's give you unlimited opportunity to directly influence, and while I disagree w/ the idea that you need to hire the biggest swinging dick contractor out there, you do have to have someone who has the institutional knowledge & ability to run a 3 dimensional chess game over many years in order to be successful. People with that highly developed skill set aren't 1st year lobbyists, they're long-time professionals who do this kind of work for either the paycheck or for the love of the issues they work on. My experience is that you can get the talent you need for less than the going rate of the bug guys, but it comes without the benefit of being a backroom boy with ready made relationships. Those relationships take time to develop, and some lobbyists simply try to buy their way to the top of pile through junkets, campaign donations, etc. I've never felt that was necessary in order to achieve your goals, and it simply feeds a culture of corruption in state houses.

Bottom line is, Randy is right. Grassroots without strong leadership is a mob. Strong leadership without grassroots is a false sense of power. It takes both, and it takes sustainable funding to provide it. But that funding will come with compromise. If you think that kind of cash doesn't come with strings, then you've not been watching schoolhouse rock commercials enough.

And that's part of our problem, we need to invest for long term success, rather than taking back the night one bad guy at a time. We've let our community devolve from a powerhouse of legislative masterminds to guys who get pissy over some pretty fatuous stuff.

 

[Tradewind]

29,000 members on the forum. If evereyone donated $20 per year you would have your budget covered

 

[Ben Lamb]

29,000 members on the forum. If evereyone donated $20 per year you would have your budget covered

That's for 1 state. If we all dumped $1k per year, each, then we'd have the country covered.

 

[Tradewind]

That's for 1 state. If we all dumped $1k per year, each, then we'd have the country covered.

gotta start somewhere, Lamb. make MT your ground zero while numbers are still on your side.
But with all of the raffles I bot and winter conventions I used to go to it should be an easy sell for any western state, cept left coast.
You have SCI, Wild Sheep, DU and Pheasants Forever and the snooty grouse society. Make the spring get togher for BHA a fund raiser.
Heck, they might even let you back into MT if you organize it

 

[rwc101]

I debate a lot about where I should prioritize my conservation donations, but anything led by Big Fin would get my money.

 

[Ben Lamb]

gotta start somewhere, Lamb. make MT your ground zero while numbers are still on your side.
But with all of the raffles I bot and winter conventions I used to go to it should be an easy sell for any western state, cept left coast.
You have SCI, Wild Sheep, DU and Pheasants Forever and the snooty grouse society. Make the spring get togher for BHA a fund raiser.
Heck, they might even let you back into MT if you organize it

MT is the Citadel.

I'm in.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Edit: Ben's response above seems to address my question below already.

Would it be possible to structure such an organization under one group with several regional or state by state representatives?

From a fundraising aspect, it seems like you would significantly limit yourself by having 10+ organizations battling against one another for similar pool of money. I know that Montanans will want their dollars to be spent on Montana issues, but as a Texan the burden would be on me to determine how to allocate my limited contributions (most public land issues in Texas are a lost cause). Nationally branding such an organization, and determining how best to allocate contributions on the back-end, would seem to expand the pool of potential donors.

Just some food for thought.

I think there is a dillution issue here, but we have to remember as well as groups have to change & modernize if they want to stay relevant. If organizations are not meeting the need, then it's incumbent upon those of us who care enough to volunteer to either start that new group, or demand change from our organizations. I'd hate to see anything take away from the outstanding work that these groups do at the commission level on up to the National Level, but an actual sportsman's advocacy group that gets deeply involved (with the proper resources) to fight this battle on a higher level is truthfully what is needed.

 

[one ate E grain]

Politicians react to money because money is votes. They can't out and out take bribes (mostly) but they know they can pay canvassers and organisers and with enough of them, they win elections. Ms Mcgillicutty who loves animals and inherited hundreds of millions can donate a million a year to pro critter orgs she likes, and there are a lot of Mrs Mgilicutties. Politicians like getting re elected.

A couple of years ago Randy and David Allen came on down here and rented a hotel meeting room and warned whoever would come and listen that there was going to be a concerted effort to reintroduce wolves in CO. There's a bowhunter org, they showed up, they always do for those things, they've got 25 or so members along the front range that will show up. Twice that number again came from hearing about is somehow, probably this forum. Fish and Wildlife director showed up. Didn't see Andy Treharne who is the only full time lobbyist working in Denver on hunting/gun issues that I know of. He's with the congressional sportsmen's association, maybe he got promoted to DC or something. Heck of a sharp guy by the way.

Anyway of the folks there before the talk no one was aware of the hunting legislation voted on that day in our legislature. Forget what the issue was, but no one took even knew it was a bill or that it was voted on.

We lost that wolf thing, it was close too as I remember. A percent or something.

If you head on over to I Hunt Colorado on Facebook, (and put on your asbestos suit) and look at the topic that always gets people enraged it's wolves. BHA has always been silent on the issue, catch and releasers easily offended or something. RMEF works quietly, and probably effectively, they'll put out a press release but you won't see them carrying signs and getting signatures in parking lots down in the burbs like occured for magazine restrictions and recall elections a few years ago.

A percent, actually a fraction of a percent, .88%

I personally get a yearly membership to RMEF, and I buy two more for two of my hunting buddies, it's the only money I donate to anyone. I used to organise for politics, we'd get 150 volunteers door knocking on a Saturday, used software that listed affiliation and tracked contacts. It takes both money and dedicated volunteers, and paid professional organisers and lobbyists. Any sort of organisation could have pushed another percent on the wolf vote.

Well good luck to you. Montana is already a great state for hunting when viewed from down here. Spring bear, leghold, rights to fish the rivers. I'll be looking up at the grass before they ban hunting, but it looks like that's where things are headed.

 

[longbow51]

Still looking for who will pony up money...and waiting...and waiting...pussies

 

[Luke_with_a_lab]

Still looking for who will pony up money...and waiting...and waiting...pussies

I think alot of people on here will "pony up money". The organization to "pony" the money up to has not been brought into existance yet lol.

 

[lifeisgoodsteve]

Big thanks to all who've written and testified for HB 505. With each defensive battle, it fuels my fire to see some offensive action with the org we've talked about, starting in MT as a pilot program.

From voices on here, seems like a simple starting formula for the org is a combination of:

• Mobilizing Voices in force
• Relationships w/ Politicians and Decision Makers
• Funds

Sounds like building a solid fundraising stream is where will need the biggest support and focus, so figured might be valuable to focus on summarizing ideas so far and brainstorm on new ones:

• Annual small donations from individuals
• Whale/Big Donors who're passionate being proactive
  • need be careful not too reliant on a couple people as strings do come attached, plus doin't want org to fail if 1-2 people/org pull annual funding
• Company donations - leverage outdoors/conservation messaging
• Work with affiliate orgs as the politically focused org they can support
• Leverage individual volunteers to donate skills, time, services, etc. in exchange for certain level of donation. Outdoors/hunting mentorship, help tune bow/rifle, cooking wild game, etc. Just be careful doesn't fall into "outfitter" category where would need a license.
• Events for Hunting Skills - leverage expert hunters and communicators to donate some time for skills, field events to build relationships, enhance outdoors experience and raise funds
• etc...

There is a way to get this done.

cheers

s

 

[shoots-straight]

I think alot of people on here will "pony up money". The organization to "pony" the money up to has not been brought into existance yet lol.

Maybe not, but we formed because of the politics that went down in Helena way back. Ben was involved. Montana Sportsmen's Alliance PAC