Agree on all points. I think the point of your original post is that BHA, MWF, and other conservation groups could do a better job of extending an olive branch. From this vested person's perspective, I have yet to see any group make such a move. Understanding the needs of the opposition (which you explained really well regarding intrinsic values) in any negotiation is critical. I've been pretty vocal here about trying to meet
@antlerradar's needs relative to protecting his income from elk and his property from disrespecting hunters.
This, of course, could just be all unicorns and fairy farts.
This is why the
Elk Coalition was formed, to have those conversations. Meetings are being scheduled right now with various ag groups and outfitters who will sit down and have those discussions. Early interest between ag & sportsmen is pretty high right now, less so with outfitters.
The groups in the coalition are working on policy papers & legislation now, and will be vetting them throughout the year as they move towards the session. There's no set legislation yet, but some of the items of interest are reforming the 454 program to make it equitable for the public again, working on an approach to block management that's about herd management rather than hunter days, habitat improvement utilizing existing revenue streams, etc. A lot of this legislation is going to have to be influenced by the needs of producers to be effective, IMO.
There's a lot of blame shifting going on right now regarding the commission meeting and the outcomes. Sportsmen & women showed up in response to a negative plan, yet again. To a certain extent, that's bait for the anti-public trust crowd, so they can continue to tell people "sportsmen don't bring solutions." One prominent think tank out of Bozeman right now is calling sportsmen "greedy" because they won't simply lie down and roll over.
As we've pointed out 20 pages previously, sportsmen have presented solutions, only to be told no by both the department and the legislature. That's been occurring for the last 20 years, while the legislature continues to "flood the zone with shit."
75 bills last session on wildlife. A handful of those were decent, well thought out bills that improve wildlife management for all. The majority were special interests carving out their piece of the pie with no concept of the outcomes other than "we want this"
The muzzleloader season is a good example: Weapons manufacturers were actively involved in setting seasons in statute because they want to sell more smoke-poles. NSSF spent a lot of time and money convincing the legislature what a good idea it was to do this, despite what their actual customers thought.
So, yes - sporting conservation interests need to do better in terms of outreach. People got complacent during the last 16 years when there was a back stop to some of the bullchit. The same BS that's being brought forward now, while the proponents are gaslighting the people who are defending the public trust resource.