Opinion pieces like this bug me

[sacountry]

Mr Conyngham and Mr Shaw should be more concerned about all the Gianforte clones in US Congress that just set the session rules to make it easier to disperse Federal lands. If those lands are divested, they will end up in the hands of the same billionaires buying bulls now.

I think this was the nugget in the thread. The republican speaker nomination was a sheeat show. Even Rosendale went viral with his weird vote. Still I'm happy with a split congress. Hadn't really looked beyond the speaker circus to contemplate the possibility of a federal land divestiture. Can you add some more insight to the threat?

 

[44hunter45]

I think this was the nugget in the thread. The republican speaker nomination was a sheeat show. Even Rosendale went viral with his weird vote. Still I'm happy with a split congress. Hadn't really looked beyond the speaker circus to contemplate the possibility of a federal land divestiture. Can you add some more insight to the threat?

Randy is way smarter than me about this.

Public Lands - The Congressional Football

Well, once again we have a changing of the guard in the US House of Representatives and once again we have the same old BS about transferring public lands to the states; the back door way to dispose of public lands. The new House Rules adopted yesterday allow for easier transfer of Federal...

www.hunttalk.com

 

[sacountry]

Randy is way smarter than me about this.

Public Lands - The Congressional Football

Well, once again we have a changing of the guard in the US House of Representatives and once again we have the same old BS about transferring public lands to the states; the back door way to dispose of public lands. The new House Rules adopted yesterday allow for easier transfer of Federal...

www.hunttalk.com

Thanks. I missed that entire thread.

 

[Jock Conyngham]

I think this was the nugget in the thread. The republican speaker nomination was a sheeat show. Even Rosendale went viral with his weird vote. Still I'm happy with a split congress. Hadn't really looked beyond the speaker circus to contemplate the possibility of a federal land divestiture. Can you add some more insight to the threat?

Mr. Conyngham and Mr. Shaw ARE more concerned with federal land transfer, to quote 44. There are some very intelligent and dangerous people working on that (though Rosendale doesn’t make that cut), like Mike Lee. It’s just easier to stimulate conversation and, maybe, thought and voter engagement on more immediate issues of real concern to hunters in local and state elections. You may have noted our reference to Juras; her father was one of the founders and pillars of the movement to transfer/sell public land.

Dusty Crary is a pretty good guy, but one of his statements at Elk Camp brought me up short—that private land supplies all the wildlife for Montana. Horseshit (though it suppports a lot, particularly during hunting season). Where would all those private ranches be (in much of Montana, anyway) without the federal land they back up to? It’s 30% of Montana’s land and represents much of the state’s headwater catchment area. State lands are another 5%. I asked a deeply conservative rancher friend once what his place would be worth without the federal land that backs it, and how it would hunt. His response, “I don’t even want to think about that.”

Scott, I prefer a split congress too—but holy smokes, we have to get past gridlock. These nuts can’t even get a budget done in time, and that’s their primary job. An even more conservative friend and I were walking to lunch one day and walked past Daines and two handlers. He stuck his hand out and asked how I was doing. I replied, “I’d be doing a hell of a lot better if you gave Merrick Garland an up or down vote.” Daines scuttled away, and my friend, whom I love but who keeps telling me a holy war is coming, said, “These guys forget that we send them to Helena and Washington to do a job, and that job isn’t grandstanding and dirty tricks.” I clapped him on the back and said I note that a guy I disagree with every day on politics just gave me a political quote I’ll be using for years.

 

[Big Fin]

This is one of those threads that is interesting to watch. What often starts as a discussion of one topic turns into something else. Watching some of this reminds me of the attacks on BHA members as "Green Decoys." Unsubstantiated claims against great members doing good work, only to have some "supposed" hunting groups take the bait to hammer these volunteers. Hacking on others just seems to be the low hanging fruit of temptation.

Jock weighed in with his perspectives as one of the co-authors of this piece. I’m gonna provide some different perspectives. I’ve also received recent messages complaining about other groups (not RMEF) who are making progress this legislative session and it pisses me off.

The old saying, “You don’t know what you don’t know” applies. The authors make assertions and claims about much they don’t know. No facts are provided, just accusatory words such as “gaslighting.” I find the motivations hard to follow.

I thought the article was trying to hold the Governor and policy makers accountable, but quickly attacks a group that gets a lot of things done. It opens with this strike …”at an unadvertised event with only hand-selected loyalists in attendance at the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation,”

The authors imply there is something nefarious when a sitting Governor meets with RMEF or uses RMEF offices to host a discussion on hunting. When I sat on the RMEF Board, Congressional delegations and Governors had open invitations, regardless of party affiliation. I suspect such invitations still exists. If you want to get work done in the policy arena, it’s a good idea to invite elected policy makers.

I chaired the Board’s Governmental Affairs Committee for four years. I was in on many calls and meetings with policy makers, both Democrats and Republicans; whoever it was that could be helpful to RMEF and the mission. Nobody accused RMEF of “gaslighting” when we hosted Democratic Congressional members, Governors, or their appointees. And those were meetings with a hand-selected invitation list. Was that also "gaslighting" or does it get a pass by the authors because those were with Democrats?

The authors imply that RMEF ignores Montana hunters due to concern for wealthy or well-connected interests that support the Governor and who want landowner tags. No facts given, so here are a few facts to consider.

The donations of large landowners, outfitters, and others is a very small part of RMEF’s financial picture. RMEF is not beholden to anyone financially. When MOGA/WYOGA threatened to pull RMEF donations because of my Board nomination, RMEF didn’t blink. The amount was less than 1% of total RMEF revenues. That financial independence comes from being a large organization with 230,000+ members, a diversified donor base, and 11,000 volunteers raising money and doing project work. Add to that revenue stream huge endowments that RMEF can tap to the tune of 5% per year, and the revenue from anyone is not enough to raise an eyebrow on the RMEF Board. Fact.

Financial independence allows for freedom. You are not beholden to anyone. You are beholden to your mission and the strategic plan that fulfills that mission. You can play the long game. You won’t be threatened as often happens with smaller groups who are financially vulnerable. You don’t become reliant on Foundation money that risks making you a quasi-operating arm for a Foundation that could have much different priorities.

I have sat on the RMEF Governance Committee. The level of governance protocol is very high and is reflected in the high Charity Navigator ratings. The long-term strategic planning is with the help of outside professionals. The process of Board decisions is deliberate and made in the context of mission and the strategic plan. I suspect all those mechanisms are still in place.

That discipline is how RMEF has become a leader in large landscape conservation and public access for hunters; which in Montana is over 1 million acres of habitat conserved and over 350,000 acres of new or improved access, the latest being the Snowy Mountain WMA in 2022.

RMEF’s method of operations makes them an easy target for attacks like this article. RMEF doesn’t waste their time defending themselves or going after other groups. When I was on the Board, RMEF’s work benefited from a vocal out-front advocacy, such as the groups Jock mentions in his post above. Those groups serve a great purpose. When I was on the Board, RMEF viewed it as helpful to have vocal advocacy from other groups applying pressure (professionally) from other directions. All groups were viewed as allies to the bigger effort.

In the process of how things get done in our current crazy political climate, especially in a deep Red state like Montana, publicly kicking policy makers in the face, being hyper-partisan, and ranting on Facebook doesn’t get much done. It’s detrimental. And that political climate swung even further in the last election.

Imagine if RMEF called out folks like the authors do in this article. What purpose would it serve toward their mission?

If RMEF publicly ranted and raved as some folks want, pissing off Land Board members in the process, would they have been able to get the Snowy Mountain WMA across the goal line with a Land Board slanted as they currently are?

Do we think RMEF would be able to get the many Montana projects done in the last two decades if they used social media and email blasts to continually hack on politicians and policy makers who hold the levers of power needed to accomplish mission work?

Imagine if you are the Governor and RMEF tells you that a certain bill is going be harmful. The Governor might just call up the Republican leadership and say something to the effect, “Hey, I don’t want that bill on my desk for signature.” The bill dies a necessary death. RMEF isn’t going to make social media posts proclaiming they kicked the Governor or the legislative leaders in the teeth. They’ll just keep going about their business.

The authors want to use the 2021 session as an example. Every bad bill, and there were lots of them, that got defeated was because of a two-part effort; 1) public pressure brought forth professionally, politely, and with stated basis for opposition, and 2) the right people who have the ear of key leaders explaining why these bills are bad. Many times RMEF was one of the groups in #2. Yet without #1, the results of #2 are less. It takes both.

Much of the bad stuff that got killed last session was because Republican moderates talked to the fringe elements and the party leadership. Hyper-partisan hacking turns off those moderates and gives them no incentive to help.

Now to what was probably the tipping point for me to reply to this article and this thread. Thankfully, there is an emerging and more effective approach by some groups. Unfortunately, they’re now getting hacked on.

The Montana Citizens’ Elk Coalition, TU, Ben Lamb, Clayton Elliot, and Marcus Strange have been a huge help in leading with an approach that's showing results. I know Ben is getting hammered by some because he has reached out to find solutions with groups some hunters disagree with.

There’s a reason some of the craziness that started the 2021 legislative session has been toned down in 2023. Because a lot of work was done by the people/groups mentioned in the prior paragraph before the session started. It wasn’t from caustic social media posts or email blasts to flame elected officials. It was reaching out and building trust over the last two years. And it’s paying dividends. It’s frustrating to see Ben and the Coalition get hacked on by the fringes because they aren’t taking the “partisan” approach that has proven to be a waste of time and energy.

We are all pushing toward a better place for hunting, fishing, access, and conservation. Each group plays an important role in how we get there. Pot shots on RMEF and the subsequent cracks at the Coalition and their leadership does nothing helpful toward that end. It might make some folks feel better. For me, it gets a big, “WTF? What purpose does this serve?”

I struggle to see what progress is made with those actions. I only see bridges burning.

I’ve been in this gig for 30 years. When RMEF screwed up on the Roadless Release Act in 2010, I told them so. When I was on the Board, there were times I was a dissenting vote, but I never once felt like my fellow Board members had a different compass heading than I had, just a difference of the best path to get there. I’ve been off the Board for almost four years, but I suspect the current Board members have that same compass heading and share the same commitment to conservation that all of us have.

You won’t hear me hacking on groups unless there is some obvious and egregious violation. I don’t know what groups are doing behind the scenes, so when it comes to the work they’ve accomplished, “I don’t know what I don’t know.” I’m surely not going to write a letter to the editor proclaiming to know things I don’t know. Jock serves as Chairman of the Board of a group in Montana. He should be held to a high level of expected knowledge when making very pointed claims such as these.

As I age and as I’ve made my share of mistakes, I realize how short my time is. I’ve resolved my time and energy will be spent moving the ball down the field, not bitching at my fellow teammates because they called a different play than I might have called. Odds are they are engaged in some way, either publicly or quietly, making a difference. And for that, I’m grateful.

And to Ben, Clayton, Marcus, and the others who are helping them – Thank you. You are making a difference. Despite the critics, you have my support. Use my platforms for whatever you feel is helpful.

Carry on …….

 

[Irrelevant]

@Big Fin

I appreciate your effort and contributions to this topic and to this thread. But I also feel like you're dismissing legitimate concerns.

You're 100% correct that not everyone gets to see the inner workings, but every gets to see what they do "put out there" as well as the results; elk number, elk habitat, elk hunting.

You made a ton of great points and I'm not even going to pretend that I'm capable of responding to them. But some did stand out, that I feel the need to comment on.

While I can't see what RMEF foundation is doing behind the scenes, I can weigh in on what they're doing on the public stage. And here's what I'm seeing.
1. They have an entire section of bugle dedicated to predator management yet nothing on elk management. I've never once read in a rmef pub what is wrong with the current EMP, the effects of shoulder seasons, etc.
2. Look at their social (FB). I had to go back ONE whole day to find a completely un-elk related post on predators. Ten days for a post on Oregon gun regs. I don't know about you but those are two issues sure seem to politically divisive. If you go back 26 posts you'll find the first one on elk management (Kentucky). I did not find one regarding conservation politics, though I stopped after a few minutes of scrolling.
3. Take a look at the "Take action" webpage, the first item is Colorado wolves, second is Washington State gun rights, that's it. I guess I don't see how engaging in these hyper-partisan topics promote elk conservation, but Montana's elk management proposal's don't? When do they turn off moderates and when are they sticking up for hunters? These are legitimate questions. Ones that get me worked up as a member and only infrequent MT elk hunter. If I was a res MT hunter I'd be fuming over it. Furthermore, how does pushing those topics fit into the "working behind the scenes" narrative?

You asked what use these "pot shots" have. I'd argue they're good for holding an organization accountable to the wishes of its members and to make other members aware that they're not alone in their criticisms.

Too much of the current RMEF operations lack tangible facts and rely too heavily on faith based accusations of good deeds done in the nebulas "behind the scenes arena". I don't think it's too must to ask to bring the ship round a bit. Ease off all of the political BS that isn't even directly elk conservation related, refocus on Cervus canadensis... screw bears in WA, guns in OR, wolves in ID.

Now don't leap to the conclusion that all this is is a bunch of bitching on HT that isn't actually doing anything productive. I know I've historically written a mountain of emails to various NPs, including RMEF, providing comment where I feel they're drifting off the mark and out of scope. Heck, BHA has fielded more criticism from me on green energy than RMEF ever will (To back the tangible aspect even more, I've also already emailed all of my State representatives and governor tonight over the GD bear fiasco that won't end. This HT comment was the night cap).

I'm not pointing this out to undermine anything you've said, you're not wrong in your opinions, so don't take it that way, but you can't just sweep the criticism under the rug like it doesn't exist or doesn't have merit.

There's a conservationist that I look up to, that is fond of saying, "Conservation isn't convenient." And some members are of the opinion that the continued silence on elk management is a little too convenient.

 

[Big Fin]

@neffa3

Those are all valid points. If those were the points made in the article, I could have eliminated the first half of my post. Unfortunately, the assertions made in the article in question did not address any of the concerns you mentioned.

 

[COEngineer]

@neffa3

Those are all valid points. If those were the points made in the article, I could have eliminated the first half of my post. Unfortunately, the assertions made in the article in question did not address any of the concerns you mentioned.

Randy, the fact that you allow the critics to keep typing on your own forum is a testament to your character. Thank you.

neffa, I think you are doing it right. Let RMEF (and other non-profits) know how you feel, but don't go bashing them (especially unfairly) in LTEs. Also, if you or I or any other members really don't agree with how they are working towards their mission, stop sending them money. Find a different group that more closely aligns with your desires. We aren't stuck with non-profits like we are with elected officials. Elected officials represent us whether we voted for them or not. Non-profits are responsible for their mission, as they see it, and nothing else. If they are ineffective, they will lose their members and fade away. I'm with Randy, I think RMEF, in particular, is very effective at what they do and I support other non-profits that do the things that RMEF doesn't do.

 

[Irrelevant]

Also, if you or I or any other members really don't agree with how they are working towards their mission, stop sending them money.

IDK it's that easy. As Randy pointed out, RMEF has 230k members. If I want my conservation dollars to be the most impactful I have to take into account the size of the hammer an organization swings. They also are killing it in the land conservation arena. Do I also give to others, of course. But I'm not going to throw in the towel on the elk foundation because I don't agree with a portion of their efforts, but I'm also not going to sit back quietly and let them piss away my donation on frivilous partisan topics that aren't directly related to elk conservation.

 

[Nameless Range]

I appreciate the discourse here.

For me personally, whether certain criticisms are appropriate regarding this issue, really hinges on whether or not the UPOM lawsuit is a legitimate threat. If UPOM got what they wanted, I'd go so far as to say it's over. "It" being the war against privatization and hope for collaborative solutions, and "it" would be lost.

Because of a lot of the information shared here, I increasingly get the sense that UPOMs lawsuit isn't much of a threat. In turn though I wonder, is it not much of a threat because the groups that filed as intervenors will hold our government accountable? Without them, would UPOM get what they want?

 

[Schaaf]

I appreciate the discourse here.

For me personally, whether certain criticisms are appropriate regarding this issue, really hinges on whether or not the UPOM lawsuit is a legitimate threat. If UPOM got what they wanted, I'd go so far as to say it's over. "It" being the war against privatization and hope for collaborative solutions, and "it" would be lost.

Because of a lot of the information shared here, I increasingly get the sense that UPOMs lawsuit isn't much of a threat. In turn though I wonder, is it not much of a threat because the groups that filed as intervenors will hold our government accountable? Without them, would UPOM get what they want?

I don’t believe the UPOM lawsuit is a threat in the least bit.

However, if it were to prevail at all, the only approach I could see a judge taking is by making all those grossly over-objective units cow only since their perceived “issue” is population control. Which would be the self own of all self owns.

 

[Irrelevant]

@neffa3

Those are all valid points. If those were the points made in the article, I could have eliminated the first half of my post. Unfortunately, the assertions made in the article in question did not address any of the concerns you mentioned.

I think all of the issues brought up in the article (really LTTE) can all be tied to the lack of engagement in actual elk management and whatever politics surround it. To deflect and say they only work behind the scenes, while probably true in many, or most, instances (though also often unverifiable) is still a bit of a cop out as they don't just work behind the scenes, they are very much out in front on some issues, ones that are just as politically divisive, ones that contain all of the same political trappings as jumping into the politics of wildlife management and recent privatization push.

Simply to have a non profit collecting member dues to support a mission "Ensure the future of elk..." yet lacking any reasonable effort to inform its members how politics and management are currently effecting elk populations, distributions, and hunter access to those elk, let a lone direct public political engagement, seems like a glaring omission. Especially when some of the biggest threats are coming from the state the org is based in.

"Today, RMEF is one of the most effective and efficient conservation organizations in the United States. Working together with members, volunteers and conservation partners, it is a strong voice for elk, elk country, hunters and public access as well as wildlife management and conservation issues"

I'd like to hear that voice a bit more.

Now to be fair, per the website, it is governed by a BOD who's stated "primary role is to ensure the RMEF maximizes its charge to protect and enhance elk habitat, restore elk to native ranges, and educate others about wildlife, habitat conservation and our hunting heritage." There is a lot left out of that statement, deliberate or not, directly related to the topics we're discussing.

 

[Big Fin]

I think all of the issues brought up in the article (really LTTE) can all be tied to the lack of engagement in actual elk management and whatever politics surround it.

I wish I could agree with you on that, but 30 years of history in these issues and the folks involved tells me otherwise. Some of the calls and messages I get complaining about those who try to work within the political reality of the day only serve to confirm why I don't agree with that LTTE being about elk management. If the LTTE was about elk management, it should have brought up the many good points you are making. Instead, it only focused on politicians, politics, and a very slanted view of what really happens.

To deflect and say they only work behind the scenes, while probably true in many, or most, instances (though also often unverifiable) is still a bit of a cop out as they don't just work behind the scenes, they are very much out in front on some issues, ones that are just as politically divisive, ones that contain all of the same political trappings as jumping into the politics of wildlife management and recent privatization push.

I'm not deflecting. You and others make really good points. I'm glad to see those points raised. If RMEF were to hear your comments from a large number of members, donors, and volunteers, they would weigh that in their decisions. When I was on the Board, I got calls almost every night. I got piles of emails. I took them all to the Board discussions. And those points were considered. They were all considered, even if the Board did not agree with the request in that comment.

And yes, RMEF is out in front on some of the issues and not as vocal on others, with a rationale applied to that. When I was on the Board there was a process to determine which issues or events are high enough priority to be worthy of engagement and, if so, to what level of engagement.

You would be amazed at the huge variety of topics RMEF is asked to engage in. And for every topic, they get ten different perspectives, each asking they view it through the lens of that person. When you get that many requests, that many perspectives, you have to develop protocols as to what category the comment/request falls under, what level of priority it deserves, and if it is a high enough priority, how do you engage in the way the stays within the mission and the strategic plan.

I'd encourage any member to write them and voice their concerns and ask that your perspectives be given priority, or to lessen priority to things you may not like. Input from members is what guides an organization.

My point is that RMEF positions and engagement is not some sort of random or personal biases at play. Nor is it random for any successful NGO. Each position is given a lot of deliberation. The Board debates these topics, very passionately. And the decisions will not please every person. But, I am 100% confident that the decision made on each issue was applied to the mission and the strategic plan. It was then and I am confident the same holds true today.

Members are never in unanimous agreement on the mission or the strategic plan. Yet, the Board needs to have a road map to follow and a matrix in how decisions get made. Input from members and volunteers guides a lot of that.

Simply to have a non profit collecting member dues to support a mission "Ensure the future of elk..." yet lacking any reasonable effort to inform its members how politics and management are currently effecting elk populations, distributions, and hunter access to those elk, let a lone direct public political engagement, seems like a glaring omission. Especially when some of the biggest threats are coming from the state the org is based in.

"Today, RMEF is one of the most effective and efficient conservation organizations in the United States. Working together with members, volunteers and conservation partners, it is a strong voice for elk, elk country, hunters and public access as well as wildlife management and conservation issues"

I'd like to hear that voice a bit more.

Now to be fair, per the website, it is governed by a BOD who's stated "primary role is to ensure the RMEF maximizes its charge to protect and enhance elk habitat, restore elk to native ranges, and educate others about wildlife, habitat conservation and our hunting heritage." There is a lot left out of that statement, deliberate or not, directly related to the topics we're discussing.

Agree. The Board's job is to guide the organization (via the CEO and staff) through those issues that are left out or not specifically addressed in the mission statement. That is the human element of governance, debate, and leadership. That is why successful NGOs establish protocols for how that happens. That is why successful NGOs build a detailed strategic plan that is the road map of how to best accomplish the mission over the next one, three, five, maybe ten years.

I get that folks would like RMEF to be more involved in every management issue in Montana. When I got to the Board that was foremost on my mind. Then comes a wake up - you realize that you have to think about RMEF as a national organization. You quickly realize that what happens in Montana is unique to Montana and might be completely different than how members would want engagement in Colorado or Arizona or Oregon. You can end up in a huge circle of contradiction if you focus on each issue, each little skirmish, and only the perspective of that person. To avoid that circle of contradiction, you develop guiding principles that are tied to the mission and the strategic plan, with a strategic plan being the roadmap for how you best accomplish the mission.

Below are summarized the guiding principles used when I was there. I'm suspect they haven't changed much:

- Science as the basis for elk management

- Healthy elk populations maintained at both biologically and socially sustainable levels

- Maintain hunting as a primary tool for managing elk populations

- Improved hunter access to elk on public lands

- Increase hunter access to private lands

- Maximizing hunting opportunity and quality

- Respect for private property and the contributions of private landowners toward elk conservation

No matter the issue, no matter the state or location, those are principles we felt, and I agree with, that would help accomplish the mission I was charged with. It kept the Board from getting into contradictions in policy where you support/oppose a policy/proposal in one state, only to have the members in another state ask that you take the opposite position in their state.

Some are easy. Colorado ballot initiative to reintroduce wolves is outside most of those guiding principles. It hits many of those, so if I was on the Board, I would ask RMEF to lean into that issue.

Some are not easy. Montana has a history of "opportunity." Some members love that opportunity and love the long seasons. Some, like me, are saying Montana's emphasis on opportunity is pushing the elk to inaccessible lands. That gets a lot harder as evidenced by the debates here on HT.

I had Hunt Talk as a huge sounding board for me, something no other Board member had. Yet, it didn't take long to realize that the passionate folks on Hunt Talk are not necessarily a reflection of elk hunters. Personally, I wish the HT members were a greater cross section within the elk hunting community, but it is not. So, I had to take my Hunt Talk hat off, the same as I had to be less provincial about Montana, my way of hunting, etc.

None of this is easy and there will always be push back. It is why the Board had measurements of acres conserved, access gained, member numbers, elk expansion, etc. to measure progress toward the mission and strategic plan. Those are higher level objective measurement criteria that keeps an NGO on track.

I hope anyone reading this and is a member or volunteer reaches out to RMEF and let them know the the priorities they would like to see. They do want that feedback. They want that feedback enough such that in 2021 they did a huge survey of members to identify member priorities and learn even more about their membership. They shared some of that. Some of it was a surprise to me and not what you would get in a survey of Hunt Talk members.

Back to the LTTE, it doesn't address those issues you brought up.

 

[sacountry]

Randy, the fact that you allow the critics to keep typing on your own forum is a testament to your character. Thank you.

Amen brother.

 

[OntarioHunter]

Interesting discussion. Wish there weren't so many acronyms. Makes it a little hard to follow at times. But maybe that's just me.

 

[sacountry]

Interesting discussion. Wish there weren't so many acronyms. Makes it a little hard to follow at times. But maybe that's just me.

LTTE according to Wiki =

 

[COEngineer]

LTTE according to Wiki =

LTTE = Letters To The Editor

 

[sacountry]

LTTE = Letters To The Editor

That's much less funny than a Sri Lankan militant group.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Interesting discussion. Wish there weren't so many acronyms. Makes it a little hard to follow at times. But maybe that's just me.

HT = Hunt Talk

 

[Jock Conyngham]

This is one of those threads that is interesting to watch. What often starts as a discussion of one topic turns into something else. Watching some of this reminds me of the attacks on BHA members as "Green Decoys." Unsubstantiated claims against great members doing good work, only to have some "supposed" hunting groups take the bait to hammer these volunteers. Hacking on others just seems to be the low hanging fruit of temptation.

Jock weighed in with his perspectives as one of the co-authors of this piece. I’m gonna provide some different perspectives. I’ve also received recent messages complaining about other groups (not RMEF) who are making progress this legislative session and it pisses me off.

The old saying, “You don’t know what you don’t know” applies. The authors make assertions and claims about much they don’t know. No facts are provided, just accusatory words such as “gaslighting.” I find the motivations hard to follow.

Randy, I respect and admire your hosting and engaging at length in this thread. Your responses, like others in this thread, have led me to some deep thinking and to return several times to the guest opinion piece to reread it and try to understand how it came across and where my own thinking needs refinement or change.

So, a few thoughts:

—That phrase above is literally what it’s called—a guest opinion piece. It runs on the opinion page and, while that format is allowed more length than an LTE/LTTE, it is still subject to a word limit. Opinion pieces aren’t journalism; they are opinion, meant to stimulate thought and conversation. Within the limits we worked under, we still offered a number of facts in the third and fourth paragraphs that we based our opinions on, in terms of the bills the governor signed, and they sure did involve elk management. So I don’t follow some of your criticisms about lack of substantiation and lack of elk management in our opinion piece. Furthermore, the piece we submitted contained a number of hot links to news articles, though they seem to have been deleted in the Lake County Leader link that begins this thread, and maybe in others that were reformatted for publication or copied and pasted.

—I’m still somewhat puzzled that so much feedback here has been about RMEF and so little about the governor, his appointees, and the 2021 legislative session. I didn’t think the opinion piece said RMEF was gaslighting/misleading/whatever, but that the governor was. Our pointing to the fact that the meeting was closed and consisted of hand-selected participants is a reference to the governor’s practice of not holding open public meetings—not a decision of RMEF. In rereading, I suspect that we tarred RMEF by association with criticisms intended solely for the governor, and that’s our fault. I regret our wording was not more precise.

—We did write that it was disappointing that RMEF gave him a platform for that, that its “only public advocacy” (a direct quote and qualifying adjective) in the 2021 session was for a single bill that would have restricted the organization’s ability to buy and sell land (which the piece describes earlier as “very important work”) but were silent (insofar as the public knew, anyway) on guaranteed outfitter tags, bulls for billionaires, the UPOM lawsuit, and other public land issues. Well, respectfully, those are facts, and they involve elk management. You certainly know many volumes more about RMEF than I, but if RMEF was working behind the scenes with the governor and with more visible partners, the question has to be asked—how did that work out for resident and non-resident DIY hunters in the 2021 election? A number of bad bills got killed. A good many more made it through, were signed, and did real damage to resident DIY and public land hunter interests. Just my opinion (shared by many others) but 2021 was a bloodbath in my book.

—Randy, you suggest our actions might be different if it were Democratic lawmakers or a governor invited to RMEF. I’m sorry, but that’s not true. I have worked hundreds of times over my career with conservation-minded Republicans. They exist, and, unfortunately, they are increasingly treated poorly by their own party and need support from sportsmen conservationists. Speaking personally, I’ve never registered with any political party and likely never will. I’ve made plenty of unhappy phone calls to Democratic legislators and their leadership, including in 2021, and can give examples.

—I think you made excellent points on casual swipes at wealthy landowners and implications about their role in RMEF.

—Now, to your final points about trying to build consensus vs. confrontation. It is true that the first can be wonderfully effective, that there are some dramatic stories of shared accomplishments, and that the work is a lot more enjoyable and civil. You don’t know me, but I’ve done most of my work in that arena for decades. It’s also true that attempting to seek consensus with extremists can be a failure, even if you get thrown a bone occasionally. There are dramatic stories in that category, also. And so, unfortunately, there are cases when the best course of action is to get someone unelected. Two different strategies, each with their applications. You got confrontational yourself on public land issues in Helena, and I thank you for it.

—You said you find the motivation for the piece hard to follow. It’s pretty simple—to get hunters too busy to get in the legislative and commission weeds aware that the governor—and he has plenty of company on both sides of the aisle—often says one thing and signs bills or chooses appointees to the contrary. Also, to cue hunters up to pay attention to the legislative session. I explained those motivation in my first post in this thread. Your response suggests that efforts toward relationship building are changing things in Helena. I hope you’re right, and I’ll certainly thank the architects of that strategy if it is effective. I’m withholding judgment, though. GG’s most recent appointments to the commission don’t indicate that he is now friendlier. Many of the worst bills of the 2021 session came through in a rush at the end, and that may well happen again.

—I’ll finish by saying my responses to other subjects you bring up are best not addressed in a public forum for the reasons you share—but I believe in facing up to my statements, which is what brought me to HT in the first place. If you want to meet to discuss this directly and privately, Randy, I would be happy to drive over to Bozeman. I have emailed you in the past, so I suspect you have my email. If not and you’re willing to meet, please let me know here or by direct message. And thanks again for engaging and hosting.