What if?

[Big Fin]

This image shows in a higher degree what Alex Diekmann was able to do in Taylor's Fork. Every piece acquired that you see in dark green or striped-purple had been approved for 20-acre ranchettes. Those parcels also controlled access to the trails and roads that took you into the deeper parts of the drainage. This is the key migration corridor for elk heading from the NW corner of YNP to their wintering grounds in the Madison Valley.

I'm not sure how he did it, but I still remember when he called me and said, "We gotta meet. I can't tell you what, but get over to my office." I hung up and headed over, knowing he wouldn't call me and give me those instructions unless he had something really good.

Amazingly,he had worked a deal with the landowner who was beyond pissed at the USFS. The USFS would not let the seller use the USFS bridge to haul cabins into the parcels north of the Taylor's Fork. The guy, David Brask, got so mad, he flew one cabin in there with a chopper. He kept that 20-acre parcel and the cabin is still there.

Yet, somehow, some way, Alex got Brask to agree to this deal that was an option to purchase. The option had a short timeline. Alex, though not a hunter, knew that hunters carried a lot of clout with the MT delegation. He needed hunters to get funding and put political pressure on the Montana delegation to make this project a high priority for funding under the LWCF. That is where he needed my help. I called RMEF Founder Charlie Decker. I called some Hunt Talkers who were part of the local Headwaters Game and Fish Association, as we had a lot of success swaying the MT delegation to our way of thinking.

As a side note, one of our Senators, Conrad Burns, ran on a platform of "no net gain in public lands." Getting him on board was interesting. But, he agreed. He even gave a big speech at the ceremony about the value of public lands. Before he passed, he commented that some of his most memorable work as Senator was the public land work he was part of.

The Trust for Public Lands, Alex's employer, ponied up a ton of cash to buy sections Brask wanted sold before Congress could act. TPL did that, and if not, Brask probably would have walked before the deal could have got done. MT FWP and RMEF put in a lot of money. If ever you have a chance to work with TPL, you will be working with professionals who know how to get stuff done.

Alex had the private landowners on board. He got County Commissioners on his side. He got MT FWP to step outside their normal apolitical position and advocate for this acquisition. He got every group you could imagine. He brought all kinds of press and PR to the issue, such that if you weren't publicly supporting this project, you were viewed as aligned with Al Qaeda.

So many people to thank for this one. Too many to mention. Alex was rallying so many to the cause and letting everyone else take credit at the commemoration ceremony. His focus was already three more projects down the line.

If you hunt here, or if you hunt the elk that now migrate through here without having to dodge ranchettes, thank Alex Diekmann and Trust for Public Land. Many groups helped. Everyone I know who was involved would agree that without Alex and TPL, the Taylor's Fork and its amazing wildlife values would today be ruined; nothing more than another ugly human pox on an amazing landscape.

 

[WyoDoug]

I can only thank you Randy for what you and others have done for public access. I only hope that eventually the same thing happens in Wyoming.

 

[Corax]

Thank you, Randy, for bringing this out.

 

[rmyoung1]

Thanks for all of your effort, Randy. Really looking forward to this. As a guy who grew up in the Mammoth/Gardiner area, the places you’re highlighting are important to me for a whole lot of reasons. Glad you’re telling the story, and I look forward to learning some new things about a familiar place!

 

[rtraverdavis]

This project and these stories have always been simmering on the back burner. Over the last few months, I have Marcus to thank for relighting a bit more of the fire. It got me to think about our "WHY" and how these stories are perfectly aligned with that WHY. After three years of driving around the west with me, listening to stories about projects we drove past or trailheads from which we hiked or people I talk about, Marcus met with me a couple months ago and pitched his idea. I'm paraphrasing, but it went like this.

M: "You tell about all these landscape stories I find very compelling. I think other people might find them interesting. You know the people; they are your friends. You know most the backstories. If you weren't involved, you know someone who was. When we going to make films out of these?"​

​

Fin: "Yeah, so. We've got a ton of work to do. We're struggling to get a film completed about a dam and the crazy people who got it stopped. How we gonna do 3-4 new projects each year? Let me know where the money tree is growing and I'll go shake it for a while."​

​

M: "Well, once we finish the dam story, we could switch from the super expensive 20-minute films and start doing less expensive 6-9 minute pieces and do more of them. Nobody else has the ability to tell these stories. We should do it. I'll take the lead."​

​

Fin: "I've gotta run to another meeting. Let's talk about it later."​

Marcus knew he was hitting my weak spots. He knew it would get me thinking more about his pitch, and it did. Not sure if he talked to Matthew, but as part of our SWOT analysis, Matthew identified one of our strengths as the value provided by decades of conservation involvement and the stories that came from that. Matthew also pushes me to do these stories when we can finance them internally.

Financing "WHY" projects is a reality that falls on my shoulders. We've talked about how our food and conservation content has lower views. When we have meetings and the topic of lower performing videos comes up, I usually respond with, "I don't care. Food and conservation are important to me and our brand. If they don't pay for themselves, I'm still doing them. Just part of how I'm gonna run this joint."

That reply gets the crew smiling. They know I won't let the numbers get in the way if the project is something important to me, as this is. They are all in. I am lucky they share my same passion for that part of what we do. So long as we can make payroll and tell the stories we think are compelling, that is what we are going to do.

So, this project has gone from something I've been talking about for a decade to something that will get done, mostly thanks to Marcus and his understanding of how to get me wound up. And due to the talent we have. Three of our seven guys have Masters of Fine Arts in Science and Natural History Filmmaking from Montana State; Marcus, David, and RJ. These guys know how to make a film. I just need to get the hell out of their way, find the funding, give them the backstories and overall message, then let them put it together.

A 20-minute film is a $50-80K project. Finding that kind of funding in the outdoor space is hard. As such, we've lost our butts on the films we have done, with the exception of Rain Deer, which was a break even, thanks to Leupold, Sitka, and B&C. The films Close, Uncommon Ground, and our new film coming out in two weeks, Selfless, are all money pits. Fun and fulfilling money pits, but money pits nonetheless. Fortunately Mystery Ranch and Wild Sheep Foundation helped make Selfless a smaller money pit.

A 6-9 minute film will be more of a $15K hard cost. Presenting them as short chapters in a much bigger overall story about common people doing uncommon work is unique and gives me confidence I can get some of those funded. If not, well, it will fall in with the many other projects we've done in this endeavor that cost more than hoped.

Summary; thanks to Marcus for knowing how to get me on board with his idea to capitalize on the twenty-five years of conservation stories that exist in our office. Fingers crossed we can get it done and the crew can still get a paycheck.

Any way we could chip in to mitigate some of the cost? A few bucks for a hell of a good cause?

 

[Addicting]

This project and these stories have always been simmering on the back burner. Over the last few months, I have Marcus to thank for relighting a bit more of the fire. It got me to think about our "WHY" and how these stories are perfectly aligned with that WHY. After three years of driving around the west with me, listening to stories about projects we drove past or trailheads from which we hiked or people I talk about, Marcus met with me a couple months ago and pitched his idea. I'm paraphrasing, but it went like this.

M: "You tell about all these landscape stories I find very compelling. I think other people might find them interesting. You know the people; they are your friends. You know most the backstories. If you weren't involved, you know someone who was. When we going to make films out of these?"​

​

Fin: "Yeah, so. We've got a ton of work to do. We're struggling to get a film completed about a dam and the crazy people who got it stopped. How we gonna do 3-4 new projects each year? Let me know where the money tree is growing and I'll go shake it for a while."​

​

M: "Well, once we finish the dam story, we could switch from the super expensive 20-minute films and start doing less expensive 6-9 minute pieces and do more of them. Nobody else has the ability to tell these stories. We should do it. I'll take the lead."​

​

Fin: "I've gotta run to another meeting. Let's talk about it later."​

Marcus knew he was hitting my weak spots. He knew it would get me thinking more about his pitch, and it did. Not sure if he talked to Matthew, but as part of our SWOT analysis, Matthew identified one of our strengths as the value provided by decades of conservation involvement and the stories that came from that. Matthew also pushes me to do these stories when we can finance them internally.

Financing "WHY" projects is a reality that falls on my shoulders. We've talked about how our food and conservation content has lower views. When we have meetings and the topic of lower performing videos comes up, I usually respond with, "I don't care. Food and conservation are important to me and our brand. If they don't pay for themselves, I'm still doing them. Just part of how I'm gonna run this joint."

That reply gets the crew smiling. They know I won't let the numbers get in the way if the project is something important to me, as this is. They are all in. I am lucky they share my same passion for that part of what we do. So long as we can make payroll and tell the stories we think are compelling, that is what we are going to do.

So, this project has gone from something I've been talking about for a decade to something that will get done, mostly thanks to Marcus and his understanding of how to get me wound up. And due to the talent we have. Three of our seven guys have Masters of Fine Arts in Science and Natural History Filmmaking from Montana State; Marcus, David, and RJ. These guys know how to make a film. I just need to get the hell out of their way, find the funding, give them the backstories and overall message, then let them put it together.

A 20-minute film is a $50-80K project. Finding that kind of funding in the outdoor space is hard. As such, we've lost our butts on the films we have done, with the exception of Rain Deer, which was a break even, thanks to Leupold, Sitka, and B&C. The films Close, Uncommon Ground, and our new film coming out in two weeks, Selfless, are all money pits. Fun and fulfilling money pits, but money pits nonetheless. Fortunately Mystery Ranch and Wild Sheep Foundation helped make Selfless a smaller money pit.

A 6-9 minute film will be more of a $15K hard cost. Presenting them as short chapters in a much bigger overall story about common people doing uncommon work is unique and gives me confidence I can get some of those funded. If not, well, it will fall in with the many other projects we've done in this endeavor that cost more than hoped.

Summary; thanks to Marcus for knowing how to get me on board with his idea to capitalize on the twenty-five years of conservation stories that exist in our office. Fingers crossed we can get it done and the crew can still get a paycheck.

I for one never knew it cost that kind of money to produce content. Yet, you put it on YouTube for us to watch free of charge. I value the short content clips and the ideas in this thread more than a well polished 400” elk video.

You have always had a nack for telling a story and getting the meaning out. I very much look forward to this content coming out. What can we do to help you shake the money tree to at least break even status?

 

[WyoDoug]

Maybe consider setting up a Paypal or something we can donate into through a link on this website? Conservation is important and if I donate to RMEF and others, this one is just as worthy. More educational films are definitely needed.

 

[RobG]

The core of these conservation films we are doing highlights what I think are three common traits to important conservation work; 1) it's always difficult, 2) it's always uncomfortable, and 3) it's always inconvenient.

I'd add controversial. I'm told there were a large contingency of purist who were against it because it sacrificed the Big Sky area.

Also, do you know the story of the "other state lands" in the Buffalo Horn?

Finally, I know LWCF was used to buy some of these lands.

 

[Big Fin]

I'd add controversial. I'm told there were a large contingency of purist who were against it because it sacrificed the Big Sky area.

Also, do you know the story of the "other state lands" in the Buffalo Horn?

Finally, I know LWCF was used to buy some of these lands.

Yes, there were people who did not like the land deals. Most had some personal interest in the status quo. Nothing wrong with a person wanting to protect their current situation. And yes, some who had access across some of the Big Sky area pieces or who had relationships that gave them some exclusive opportunities were quite vocal in their opposition. Some who did not like the trade of part of the Bangtails still won't talk to me. Some who gave BSL the finger and trespassed for their hunting did not like the deal, as it improved things for those who were abiding by property laws and opened lands previously landlocked to all but those who paid no attention to property laws. Let's face it, you invest a lot of money in a property that the realtor told you would control exclusive access to thousands of acres of public lands that you could have for your very own, the odds are you will be PO'd. Reality is they should have been PO'd at their realtor or their attorney for not pointing out how tenuous it is to lay private claim to accessing vast tracts of public lands.

Also, we could not raise enough money from LWCF for the Gallatin consolidations, so we had to use timber receipts on some of the public parcels to balance the transactions. You can imagine the chitstorm that came when it was agreed we would allow RY Timber to log some properties and the stumpage receipts would go to Big Sky Lumber to balance the transaction. I thought it was a great idea; create more timber supply, consolidate lands, and create more public access. Some of the groups just hate logging. Some private citizens claimed it would hurt their "viewshed."

It is the only time I know of that Federal timber receipts were specifically earmarked for land exchange. I would have no problem if it was implemented again, providing the same benefits. Even though some of those lands were logged according to USFS timber plans, the lands acquired are now public and the trails that crossed these once-private lands are open to take us into a lot of country we would not otherwise have access to. With the benefit of 20+ years to reflect, I think it was genius, whoever came up with the idea to use timber receipts. Trees grow back, land lost to subdivision does not.

There is a really cool story of the Buffalo Horn properties, but that was long before my time. It will not be part of this series.

LWCF was used to reimburse the majority of these properties. Not all. RMEF, TPL, and MT FWP had to front a lot of money without any guarantee that they would get reimbursed. In some instances the NGOs took their lumps so to allow for the LWCF portion to be leveraged to a greater degree. There is no doubt that without the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the MT delegation being so enthusiastic to fight for appropriation for these projects, the NGOs would not have stuck their necks out to the degree they did.

How these usually work is something similar to this. A private landowner strikes a deal with RMEF, TPL, TNC, or some other land trust. Their is an option to close the deal with a set deadline of when the option expires. The NGO has to pony up a lot of money up front, both for the option (which is non-refundable) and to get the deal closed. The NGO closes on the deal at a later date, usually just before the option expires. In the interim, the NGO tries to gain as much pubic support as possible, which usually results in political pressure from the public to get their Congressional delegation to secure LWCF funds or their state legislature to secure funds from one of the state habitat/access programs. Sometimes the funds raised will completely reimburse the NGO; most times not. And LWCF usually will be used only for the land costs, with the NGO footing the bill for for staff, legal, due diligence, and many other hard costs necessary to have the talent and tools to get these kind of projects done. None of it is cookie cutter, with every deal being different in so many respects.

If the reimbursements are not what the NGO planned for, they end up in the tough position of how to make up the gap. Take if from existing NGO assets? Go on a public fund raising campaign? Reach out to well-healed donors, many of whom want to remain anonymous? Or, let the deal go away.

 

[88man]

Work Worth Doing!

 

[Tiredofthebickering]

This project and these stories have always been simmering on the back burner. Over the last few months, I have Marcus to thank for relighting a bit more of the fire. It got me to think about our "WHY" and how these stories are perfectly aligned with that WHY. After three years of driving around the west with me, listening to stories about projects we drove past or trailheads from which we hiked or people I talk about, Marcus met with me a couple months ago and pitched his idea. I'm paraphrasing, but it went like this.

M: "You tell about all these landscape stories I find very compelling. I think other people might find them interesting. You know the people; they are your friends. You know most the backstories. If you weren't involved, you know someone who was. When we going to make films out of these?"​

​

Fin: "Yeah, so. We've got a ton of work to do. We're struggling to get a film completed about a dam and the crazy people who got it stopped. How we gonna do 3-4 new projects each year? Let me know where the money tree is growing and I'll go shake it for a while."​

​

M: "Well, once we finish the dam story, we could switch from the super expensive 20-minute films and start doing less expensive 6-9 minute pieces and do more of them. Nobody else has the ability to tell these stories. We should do it. I'll take the lead."​

​

Fin: "I've gotta run to another meeting. Let's talk about it later."​

Marcus knew he was hitting my weak spots. He knew it would get me thinking more about his pitch, and it did. Not sure if he talked to Matthew, but as part of our SWOT analysis, Matthew identified one of our strengths as the value provided by decades of conservation involvement and the stories that came from that. Matthew also pushes me to do these stories when we can finance them internally.

Financing "WHY" projects is a reality that falls on my shoulders. We've talked about how our food and conservation content has lower views. When we have meetings and the topic of lower performing videos comes up, I usually respond with, "I don't care. Food and conservation are important to me and our brand. If they don't pay for themselves, I'm still doing them. Just part of how I'm gonna run this joint."

That reply gets the crew smiling. They know I won't let the numbers get in the way if the project is something important to me, as this is. They are all in. I am lucky they share my same passion for that part of what we do. So long as we can make payroll and tell the stories we think are compelling, that is what we are going to do.

So, this project has gone from something I've been talking about for a decade to something that will get done, mostly thanks to Marcus and his understanding of how to get me wound up. And due to the talent we have. Three of our seven guys have Masters of Fine Arts in Science and Natural History Filmmaking from Montana State; Marcus, David, and RJ. These guys know how to make a film. I just need to get the hell out of their way, find the funding, give them the backstories and overall message, then let them put it together.

A 20-minute film is a $50-80K project. Finding that kind of funding in the outdoor space is hard. As such, we've lost our butts on the films we have done, with the exception of Rain Deer, which was a break even, thanks to Leupold, Sitka, and B&C. The films Close, Uncommon Ground, and our new film coming out in two weeks, Selfless, are all money pits. Fun and fulfilling money pits, but money pits nonetheless. Fortunately Mystery Ranch and Wild Sheep Foundation helped make Selfless a smaller money pit.

A 6-9 minute film will be more of a $15K hard cost. Presenting them as short chapters in a much bigger overall story about common people doing uncommon work is unique and gives me confidence I can get some of those funded. If not, well, it will fall in with the many other projects we've done in this endeavor that cost more than hoped.

Summary; thanks to Marcus for knowing how to get me on board with his idea to capitalize on the twenty-five years of conservation stories that exist in our office. Fingers crossed we can get it done and the crew can still get a paycheck.

I happily paid $10 to buy that MeatEater movie and I haven't even watched it twice yet, just sayin'. I'm sure there are more of me than you think.

 

[WyoDoug]

I reluctantly went with Amazon Prime to watch some of your videos. I figure you deserve to make some bucks out of it and I do not mind paying for some of the conservation series videos if you sold either hard copy or pay per view.

 

[dirtclod Az.]

You and Marcus are big into development of sharing land sources/education.
Keep iIt up I volunteer to Az.Game and fish every opportuniity.Hands on cleanup and conservation.
sometimes watch Marcus' cooking...Ha!Ha! Just jokin"

 

[dirtclod Az.]

Cleanup and land conservation are where it's at.!

 

[Wind Gypsy]

This project and these stories have always been simmering on the back burner. Over the last few months, I have Marcus to thank for relighting a bit more of the fire. It got me to think about our "WHY" and how these stories are perfectly aligned with that WHY. After three years of driving around the west with me, listening to stories about projects we drove past or trailheads from which we hiked or people I talk about, Marcus met with me a couple months ago and pitched his idea. I'm paraphrasing, but it went like this.

M: "You tell about all these landscape stories I find very compelling. I think other people might find them interesting. You know the people; they are your friends. You know most the backstories. If you weren't involved, you know someone who was. When we going to make films out of these?"​

​

Fin: "Yeah, so. We've got a ton of work to do. We're struggling to get a film completed about a dam and the crazy people who got it stopped. How we gonna do 3-4 new projects each year? Let me know where the money tree is growing and I'll go shake it for a while."​

​

M: "Well, once we finish the dam story, we could switch from the super expensive 20-minute films and start doing less expensive 6-9 minute pieces and do more of them. Nobody else has the ability to tell these stories. We should do it. I'll take the lead."​

​

Fin: "I've gotta run to another meeting. Let's talk about it later."​

Marcus knew he was hitting my weak spots. He knew it would get me thinking more about his pitch, and it did. Not sure if he talked to Matthew, but as part of our SWOT analysis, Matthew identified one of our strengths as the value provided by decades of conservation involvement and the stories that came from that. Matthew also pushes me to do these stories when we can finance them internally.

Financing "WHY" projects is a reality that falls on my shoulders. We've talked about how our food and conservation content has lower views. When we have meetings and the topic of lower performing videos comes up, I usually respond with, "I don't care. Food and conservation are important to me and our brand. If they don't pay for themselves, I'm still doing them. Just part of how I'm gonna run this joint."

That reply gets the crew smiling. They know I won't let the numbers get in the way if the project is something important to me, as this is. They are all in. I am lucky they share my same passion for that part of what we do. So long as we can make payroll and tell the stories we think are compelling, that is what we are going to do.

So, this project has gone from something I've been talking about for a decade to something that will get done, mostly thanks to Marcus and his understanding of how to get me wound up. And due to the talent we have. Three of our seven guys have Masters of Fine Arts in Science and Natural History Filmmaking from Montana State; Marcus, David, and RJ. These guys know how to make a film. I just need to get the hell out of their way, find the funding, give them the backstories and overall message, then let them put it together.

A 20-minute film is a $50-80K project. Finding that kind of funding in the outdoor space is hard. As such, we've lost our butts on the films we have done, with the exception of Rain Deer, which was a break even, thanks to Leupold, Sitka, and B&C. The films Close, Uncommon Ground, and our new film coming out in two weeks, Selfless, are all money pits. Fun and fulfilling money pits, but money pits nonetheless. Fortunately Mystery Ranch and Wild Sheep Foundation helped make Selfless a smaller money pit.

A 6-9 minute film will be more of a $15K hard cost. Presenting them as short chapters in a much bigger overall story about common people doing uncommon work is unique and gives me confidence I can get some of those funded. If not, well, it will fall in with the many other projects we've done in this endeavor that cost more than hoped.

Summary; thanks to Marcus for knowing how to get me on board with his idea to capitalize on the twenty-five years of conservation stories that exist in our office. Fingers crossed we can get it done and the crew can still get a paycheck.

Randy,

Appreciate you sharing some of the financial background. It makes it all the more important that we share the hell out of your conservation content with anyone that will listen and support the sponsors.

 

[Jape]

I happily paid $10 to buy that MeatEater movie and I haven't even watched it twice yet, just sayin'. I'm sure there are more of me than you think.

I agree with this. I bought Steve's video and would happily pay for your videos. I know that is not why you posted this, and maybe it doesn't align with your philosophy for making the films, but I think it could be a way to get more resources for really important projects like those you mentioned.

 

[shoots-straight]

Thanks for taking this on. Many of the old guard are on their way out in one fashion or another, and lots of the old school conservationists are either already gone or really getting up there in age. I talked with PLPW's president this weekend and after this year he's done. He's moving closer to his son, Grandchildren, and Great Grandchildren. He's spent a lot of hours in court houses sifting through documents.

 

[onpoint]

The past was full of resource management agency types - some whose contributions are recognizable, some whose feats (though no less admirable) are known to relatively few - who did or were a part of conservation and/or sportsmens/womens victories.
Tied into your other post, Randy, about what Western hunters face in this time of great and accelerating change(s) on the landscape:
What If there are little or no agency contemporaries willing and/or so inclined to step forward and really stick their necks out for the causes to come.
A different type of individual is filing the niche of resource professional than during the time of Marcoux and (his counterpart in Montana fisheries history) Vincent - Montana for instance.
Something we will see about as the future of this stuff plays out......................................

 

[Big Fin]

Tied into your other post, Randy, about what Western hunters face in this time of great and accelerating change(s) on the landscape:
What If there are little or no agency contemporaries willing and/or so inclined to step forward and really stick their necks out for the causes to come.
A different type of individual is filing the niche of resource professional than during the time of Marcoux and (his counterpart in Montana fisheries history) Vincent - Montana for instance.
Something we will see about as the future of this stuff plays out......................................

I think that answer is evident in some of the changes we see today. There has been a shift, through retirement and attrition, specifically in higher leadership positions, to people who are not inclined to rock the boat.

For an example, I think about recently departed Bernie Kuntz, an information officer for FWP. Headwater Fish & Game would ask Bernie to use his weekly radio updates to notify his audience about something that could have been against what local politicians would like. He would say something like, "I'm here to provide information that is helpful, not waste people's time." And that week he would talk about land exchange meeting, a meeting where some access issue was being discussed, or a hearing on a legislative bill that would hurt hunting. Like many of his generation within agencies, he would worry about the consequences later.

You've been in it for decades. You've seen the folks retire who would worry about consequences later, focused mostly on doing the right thing for hunting/access/conservation and doing it now. If they got a bit of heat, they viewed it as part of the position and they were not afraid to push back. You've seen the change in institutions as some of them moved along. There are still some who will speak or will give a person call/email to give a heads up and they do it outside the system. Yet, the system is migrating to a culture that has serious consequences for those doing such.

The process of politicians picking/confirming Directors and Commissioners is not healthy and contributes to a self-selection of "good followers" rather than bold leaders. This political appointee process is something that changed in the 70's and 80's. Directors at one time were hired and supervised by the Commission, not governors. The more the political process exerts its influence on these outcomes, the less chance we have to get leaders "so inclined to step forward and really stick their necks out for the causes to come."

So, I think it is a "what if" scenario supported by evidence today of "expect more of this," with "this" being less incentive and greater consequences for the bold folks who act now and seek foregiveness/permission later.

Or maybe it could be stated stated another way, "What if" hunters/anglers are not there to support those bold figures in agencies today who will stick their necks out on our behalf and we, the public, leave these vocal leaders hanging as easy targets for the political machines?

 

[onpoint]

In a few weeks, maybe I'll share a few insights regarding your last comments (BF).
Unless the more than likely scenario that this thread will be long forgotten by then - went the way of most internet discourse(s) - another couple of bytes come and gone in a gigosecond(?).
Or any of the other myriad of reasons that a thought becomes a fart in the wind.
Your last sentence is the kicker (but the "...bold figures in the agencies...." is where it might be a bit off - part of a future discussion, maybe) .........................