American prairie. What's the issue?

[BrentD]

A place where my leftist wife and daughter spend my money on items that cause me to shake my head

I think I like your wife and daughter and I have never met them!

 

[VikingsGuy]

I think I like your wife and daughter and I have never met them!

There is much to like.

 

[Wildabeest]

In the new world order, if this ain’t you, then you’re an extreme leftist, socialist, communist, Marxist pig!

 

[Elky Welky]

Jake,

One approach is confrontational and lacks empathy. The other seeks understanding without assigning intent. If the goal is to solve problems, which approach makes more sense?

Ben:

You caught me. I have no empathy for UPOM, Chuck Denowh, and their Save the Cowboy campaign. UPOM is a shady org with few actual ties to Montana that stands against everything I and many others here stand for: the NAM, public rights, public lands, waters, wildlife, equitable opportunity that doesn't discriminate between the rich and poor, landowner or city-dweller, etc. UPOM is the same group that is suing the state for a perceived problem ("too many elk") created by that very group (their refusal to use the tools at their disposal and participate in public management). Chuck Denowh is a paid gun who has no problem openly lying in hearings and op-eds, with his own personal ties to the whole mess rooted in greed. And UPOM's "Save the Cowboy" campaign, inherently problematic, taps into fears and biases in an insidious and equally unproductive (at least towards a solution, I concede that it has been highly effective at tapping into the worst impulses of its audience) way.

UPOM/Chuck/Save the Cowboy are certainly a problem, but they aren't going to be solved by seeking empathy and understanding. That ship has sailed, and at a certain point, people have to draw a line in the sand. It's one thing to have empathy and understanding, it is another to give a free pass to bad actors. They can, however, be resolved by pointing out their hypocrisy every which way we can, and beating them in the court of public opinion. And likely soon, in a court of law too.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ben:

You caught me. I have no empathy for UPOM, Chuck Denowh, and their Save the Cowboy campaign. UPOM is a shady org with few actual ties to Montana that stands against everything I and many others here stand for: the NAM, public rights, public lands, waters, wildlife, equitable opportunity that doesn't discriminate between the rich and poor, landowner or city-dweller, etc. UPOM is the same group that is suing the state for a perceived problem ("too many elk") created by that very group (their refusal to use the tools at their disposal and participate in public management). Chuck Denowh is a paid gun who has no problem openly lying in hearings and op-eds, with his own personal ties to the whole mess rooted in greed. And UPOM's "Save the Cowboy" campaign, inherently problematic, taps into fears and biases in an insidious and equally unproductive (at least towards a solution, I concede that it has been highly effective at tapping into the worst impulses of its audience) way.

UPOM/Chuck/Save the Cowboy are certainly a problem, but they aren't going to be solved by seeking empathy and understanding. That ship has sailed, and at a certain point, people have to draw a line in the sand. It's one thing to have empathy and understanding, it is another to give a free pass to bad actors. They can, however, be resolved by pointing out their hypocrisy every which way we can, and beating them in the court of public opinion. And likely soon, in a court of law too.

I'm not talking about UPOM. The discussion was centered around landowners who don't see the hypocrisy exhibited by a group claiming to represent them. What I'm talking about are those landowners who feel like that organization is the only one fighting for them or taking their concerns seriously. That's your audience, not a political group that is deliberately trying to draw you into conflict. When people post up stuff like "Save the bison, stop the cowboy," how do you think that gets interpreted by people who aren't privy to the broader context? The nuance, support for traditional ag, desire to see your neighbors succeed, etc all gets tossed out the window because a quip closes ears.

The divide between hunters and landowners will always exist but there are ways to build bridges. It's less dynamite and more work, but it builds better results.

 

[Elky Welky]

"Save the bison, stop the cowboy," how do you think that gets interpreted by people who aren't privy to the broader context?

I don't disagree with the more flies with honey approach, but that's not my audience here.

My audience is the people on this forum, most of whom are privy to the broader context. I also worry that you're giving a large swath of people a free pass to be ignorant to that broader context. Being from a small town does not give someone a free pass to be small minded. We live in different times. And most people I know from small towns and rural Montana fight hard against that stereotype and do not conform to it. But now, if it conveniences them to be ignorant so we treat them nicely, we should? I'm not buying it yet, Ben.

My quip was said in jest but with a strong kernel of truth behind it, however. Given that the Bison, Native Americans, and Western ecology as a whole were historically killed by the Cowboy, and nobody seems to want to acknowledge that, I'll gladly raise some hackles with it.

As far as rhetoric goes, though: let's say, for example, I was opposed to a political candidate "X" espousing and enacting dangerous ideas, spreading pithy messages that tap into their base's deep-seated and often ill-informed anxieties, and lying through their teeth at every turn. I'm going to attack their ideas in full force, and I'm going to point these things out in the open for the supporters of those ideas to consider, as well as to help arm other opponents to continue combating those ideas. If political candidate X gets elected, its the electorate that got them there, and their supporters are ultimately just as culpable.

I don't think UPOM's supporters and enablers, and the people posting the Save the Cowboy signs (talk about closing ears!), are entitled to that free pass. And as I pointed out much earlier in this discussion, these folks are still the ones wielding the most power, and we're well aware of the many good eggs mixed in with the few really bad ones.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Just to be clear, if we are talking in broad strokes, marketing slogans and metaphors, maybe “cowboys killed the bison” makes the desired point. But for folks who care about history’s details, the bison were largely gone before the “cowboy” was a big factor on the plains. Railroads, army, bounty hunters, market hunters, “sportsman”, early settler/famers, etc cleared them out in advance of the stereotypical “cowboy” becoming a thing.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I don't disagree with the more flies with honey approach, but that's not my audience here.

My audience is the people on this forum, most of whom are privy to the broader context. I also worry that you're giving a large swath of people a free pass to be ignorant to that broader context. Being from a small town does not give someone a free pass to be small minded. We live in different times. And most people I know from small towns and rural Montana fight hard against that stereotype and do not conform to it. But now, if it conveniences them to be ignorant so we treat them nicely, we should? I'm not buying it yet, Ben.

My quip was said in jest but with a strong kernel of truth behind it, however. Given that the Bison, Native Americans, and Western ecology as a whole were historically killed by the Cowboy, and nobody seems to want to acknowledge that, I'll gladly raise some hackles with it.

As far as rhetoric goes, though: let's say, for example, I was opposed to a political candidate "X" espousing and enacting dangerous ideas, spreading pithy messages that tap into their base's deep-seated and often ill-informed anxieties, and lying through their teeth at every turn. I'm going to attack their ideas in full force, and I'm going to point these things out in the open for the supporters of those ideas to consider, as well as to help arm other opponents to continue combating those ideas. If political candidate X gets elected, its the electorate that got them there, and their supporters are ultimately just as culpable.

I don't think UPOM's supporters and enablers, and the people posting the Save the Cowboy signs (talk about closing ears!), are entitled to that free pass. And as I pointed out much earlier in this discussion, these folks are still the ones wielding the most power, and we're well aware of the many good eggs mixed in with the few really bad ones.

It's always good to remember that things said in public remain in public. HT in particular has a very wide audience and things said here go around and around the state until they land back in your ear.

The approach you describe has been the SOP for the last 20 years in MT from both sides. It does not materially move the needle on getting things done.

 

[Elky Welky]

HT in particular has a very wide audience and things said here go around and around the state until they land back in your ear.

Good, I haven't said anything here that I don't stand behind. It's not like I'm advocating for "a good old fashioned depression" to teach us peasants the value of our food, or anything horrible like that.

The approach you describe has been the SOP for the last 20 years in MT from both sides. It does not materially move the needle on getting things done.

Getting things done for the sake of getting things done, and sacrificing values to do so, is a line I won't cross. There's compromise, and then there's sacrificing one's integrity to get a result.

And I would beg to differ as to the efficacy of standing up for what you believe in against those who preach the opposite. Montanans rejected an anti-stream access supreme court candidate not too long ago when her positions were exposed, and we have more voices advocating for the public about public lands issues than ever before. Things like the public lands rally didn't exist 20 years ago, and now political candidates from both sides of the aisle like to talk about public lands (whether they are being sincere or not). Many, many bad bills have been killed because people stood up and attacked the ideas in them and pointed out the problems.

And that starts in the one-on-one conversations people have long before we get into the realm of politics. When I see a "Save the Cowboy" sign, I have some assumptions, but I'm of course going to start by asking questions and trying to understand. But I'd like to have the hypocrisy of that movement, and its leadership, in my pocket so I can ask the tougher questions too. To be clear: I interrogate the ideas, not the people.

As far as rural values go, I think it is safe to say that rural Montanans prefer to be spoken to bluntly and honestly, and can handle when someone calls BS when what they are doing is, in fact, BS. I take my view from Jim Posewitz's rules for leadership: "You are never going to please any adversary or all your friends."

 

[DFS]

I don’t support UPOM or APR and I certainly don’t support wealthy out of staters. Call me narrow minded I will proudly wear that hat.

 

[phutch30]

In the new world order, if this ain’t you, then you’re an extreme leftist, socialist, communist, Marxist pig!

View attachment 332349

Ole Hank went a little off the deep end.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Good, I haven't said anything here that I don't stand behind. It's not like I'm advocating for "a good old fashioned depression" to teach us peasants the value of our food, or anything horrible like that.

Getting things done for the sake of getting things done, and sacrificing values to do so, is a line I won't cross. There's compromise, and then there's sacrificing one's integrity to get a result.

And I would beg to differ as to the efficacy of standing up for what you believe in against those who preach the opposite. Montanans rejected an anti-stream access supreme court candidate not too long ago when her positions were exposed, and we have more voices advocating for the public about public lands issues than ever before. Things like the public lands rally didn't exist 20 years ago, and now political candidates from both sides of the aisle like to talk about public lands (whether they are being sincere or not). Many, many bad bills have been killed because people stood up and attacked the ideas in them and pointed out the problems.

And that starts in the one-on-one conversations people have long before we get into the realm of politics. When I see a "Save the Cowboy" sign, I have some assumptions, but I'm of course going to start by asking questions and trying to understand. But I'd like to have the hypocrisy of that movement, and its leadership, in my pocket so I can ask the tougher questions too. To be clear: I interrogate the ideas, not the people.

As far as rural values go, I think it is safe to say that rural Montanans prefer to be spoken to bluntly and honestly, and can handle when someone calls BS when what they are doing is, in fact, BS. I take my view from Jim Posewitz's rules for leadership: "You are never going to please any adversary or all your friends."

Jake, respectfully, this approach is more akin to walking in to a bar and asking a guy why he's a dick, then expecting a civil conversation.

Getting things done for the sake of getting things done, and sacrificing values to do so, is a line I won't cross. There's compromise, and then there's sacrificing one's integrity to get a result.

I hear stuff like from folks like CBD, Alliance for the Wild Rockies and yes, UPOM. If the goal is to make the world a better place for wildlife and wildlife habitat, then you have to be able to compromise and find solutions that advance the cause - conserving wildlife, even if it's incremental, or challenges your ideology. Every time something happens that people have a slight disagreement with, it gets turned into a personal assault on integrity and values. Passion and determination are core attributes that help make sure wildlife remain on the landscape. Petulance and animosity generally do not.

And I would beg to differ as to the efficacy of standing up for what you believe in against those who preach the opposite. Montanans rejected an anti-stream access supreme court candidate not too long ago when her positions were exposed, and we have more voices advocating for the public about public lands issues than ever before. Things like the public lands rally didn't exist 20 years ago, and now political candidates from both sides of the aisle like to talk about public lands (whether they are being sincere or not). Many, many bad bills have been killed because people stood up and attacked the ideas in them and pointed out the problems.

The candidate Montanans rejected is now the Lieutenant Governor (and likely will be for 4 more years). Does continuing to call that out even though she's been clear that's not on her radar help you advocate with that office or hurt you? Having been on the ground floor of the rallies going back to 2009, I can tell you that those rallies served their purpose; but anymore they tend to alienate rather than bring people to us. They've turned into anti-GOP events, not resource specific things. As for the bad bills that have died, it's not simply volume that does that. The core team of dedicated professionals who work those bills have more right to claim those kills than anyone else. The reality is that without the guidance of that paid, professional staff, membership is just a mob with little direction. For all of the bad bills that died in committee, just as many never got introduced because of that deep, inside the building work that has to happen to bring credibility to the movement. Grassroots effort, tied to competent representation at the legislature is how you achieve results. Noise alone is easy to ignore.

Steve Daines got LWCF permanently funded and reauthorized. He did that after being a skeptic for years and years and years. The thing that moved him off of no and to yes was direct and polite pressure from landowners who met quietly and personally with him. He didn't do it because NGO's in the conservation space were pounding him.

And that starts in the one-on-one conversations people have long before we get into the realm of politics. When I see a "Save the Cowboy" sign, I have some assumptions, but I'm of course going to start by asking questions and trying to understand. But I'd like to have the hypocrisy of that movement, and its leadership, in my pocket so I can ask the tougher questions too. To be clear: I interrogate the ideas, not the people.

This isn't a conversation then. It's an interrogation. You may believe that you interrogate ideas, but the reality is that the their perception is you are interrogating people. Intent and perception are two very different things. These are kitchen table conversations, not cross-examinations.

As far as rural values go, I think it is safe to say that rural Montanans prefer to be spoken to bluntly and honestly, and can handle when someone calls BS when what they are doing is, in fact, BS. I take my view from Jim Posewitz's rules for leadership: "You are never going to please any adversary or all your friends."

The whole quote from Poz is "Never let your critics take your time or energy. Learn from criticism, but don’t let it distract you from your goal. You are never going to please any adversary or all your friends."

And that's solid advice.

Jim also has this in his rules: "When you talk to your people, preach hope and possibility. Eric Hoffer said revolution is built on hope, not despair. The conservation community is terrible for wailing on the peril of things - that inspire no one."

Doom & gloom may get clicks and form emails sent, but it does not provide hope, nor does it provide an avenue for trying to find middle ground. Meeting every action that you disagreed with in a similar fashion only reinforces the trenches, it doesn't gain ground.

So if the goal is to advance wildlife conservation for the benefit of wildlife and habitat, how does this approach bring those whom you disagree with closer to you? You've said they have the political power. That would mean you need them in order to advance anything that you believe would be good for critters and crunchberries. If the idea is that no compromise is acceptable, and that people would rather lose than compromise, then I think that's the fastest way to end up like TX or UT when it comes to license allocation and privitization.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Jake, respectfully, this approach is more akin to walking in to a bar and asking a guy why he's a dick, then expecting a civil conversation.



I hear stuff like from folks like CBD, Alliance for the Wild Rockies and yes, UPOM. If the goal is to make the world a better place for wildlife and wildlife habitat, then you have to be able to compromise and find solutions that advance the cause - conserving wildlife, even if it's incremental, or challenges your ideology. Every time something happens that people have a slight disagreement with, it gets turned into a personal assault on integrity and values. Passion and determination are core attributes that help make sure wildlife remain on the landscape. Petulance and animosity generally do not.



The candidate Montanans rejected is now the Lieutenant Governor (and likely will be for 4 more years). Does continuing to call that out even though she's been clear that's not on her radar help you advocate with that office or hurt you? Having been on the ground floor of the rallies going back to 2009, I can tell you that those rallies served their purpose; but anymore they tend to alienate rather than bring people to us. They've turned into anti-GOP events, not resource specific things. As for the bad bills that have died, it's not simply volume that does that. The core team of dedicated professionals who work those bills have more right to claim those kills than anyone else. The reality is that without the guidance of that paid, professional staff, membership is just a mob with little direction. For all of the bad bills that died in committee, just as many never got introduced because of that deep, inside the building work that has to happen to bring credibility to the movement. Grassroots effort, tied to competent representation at the legislature is how you achieve results. Noise alone is easy to ignore.

Steve Daines got LWCF permanently funded and reauthorized. He did that after being a skeptic for years and years and years. The thing that moved him off of no and to yes was direct and polite pressure from landowners who met quietly and personally with him. He didn't do it because NGO's in the conservation space were pounding him.



This isn't a conversation then. It's an interrogation. You may believe that you interrogate ideas, but the reality is that the their perception is you are interrogating people. Intent and perception are two very different things. These are kitchen table conversations, not cross-examinations.



The whole quote from Poz is "Never let your critics take your time or energy. Learn from criticism, but don’t let it distract you from your goal. You are never going to please any adversary or all your friends."

And that's solid advice.

Jim also has this in his rules: "When you talk to your people, preach hope and possibility. Eric Hoffer said revolution is built on hope, not despair. The conservation community is terrible for wailing on the peril of things - that inspire no one."

Doom & gloom may get clicks and form emails sent, but it does not provide hope, nor does it provide an avenue for trying to find middle ground. Meeting every action that you disagreed with in a similar fashion only reinforces the trenches, it doesn't gain ground.

So if the goal is to advance wildlife conservation for the benefit of wildlife and habitat, how does this approach bring those whom you disagree with closer to you? You've said they have the political power. That would mean you need them in order to advance anything that you believe would be good for critters and crunchberries. If the idea is that no compromise is acceptable, and that people would rather lose than compromise, then I think that's the fastest way to end up like TX or UT when it comes to license allocation and privitization.

Much wisdom above. Especially so near the end. I tell my clients & young lawyers interested in advocacy, "you aren't a real player with a chance at impacting meaningful outcomes until the opponents see you as someone that can help them address some of their issues too". Legislation and negotiation are exercises in empathy not fist pounding. Any fist pounding that results in passed legislation is most often just legislation that was going to pass anyway and the fist pounding is a self-serving post hoc war story of the prevailing side.

 

[Elky Welky]

Jake, respectfully, this approach is more akin to walking in to a bar and asking a guy why he's a dick, then expecting a civil conversation.

Ben, you know full well that I can sit at a table and have an open mind, and I haven't disagreed with you saying there is value in first approaching seeking to understand. But it isn't either/or. There's a time to sit around and sing kumbaya, and there's a time to stand up for what is right. To quote the great Omar Little: "A man's got to have a code."

As for the bad bills that have died, it's not simply volume that does that.

Where did I say that it was simply volume that has kept the worst at bay? I don't recall giving credit alone to the voices in the ring. But it's just as foolish to discount the power of many voices. Maybe it isn't working perfectly MT, but the Pebble Mine hasn't been opened in AK, and you cannot deny the power that many voices have wielded in fighting against that for the last 30 years.

If the idea is that no compromise is acceptable, and that people would rather lose than compromise, then I think that's the fastest way to end up like TX or UT when it comes to license allocation and privatization.

The fastest way to end up like TX or UT will be death by a thousand "compromises": many bills and policies that do nothing for the public but continue to grant more power to those who already have it, under some false promise of "goodwill" in return. Those with power are never going to give it up, and giving them more with nothing in return, yet calling it a compromise, is no compromise at all.

This isn't a conversation then. It's an interrogation. You may believe that you interrogate ideas, but the reality is that the their perception is you are interrogating people. Intent and perception are two very different things. These are kitchen table conversations, not cross-examinations.

I'm not advocating for grilling people in their homes, but I am advocating for understanding the root of the issues, being able to intelligently combat the underlying premises of those issues while having that discussion, and recognizing that you may walk away from the table without coming to an agreement.

Jim also has this in his rules: "When you talk to your people,

UPOM and the Save the Cowboy campaign are not my people. Part of my role is to educate my people, then giving them the tools they need to counter the BS of UPOM and their cronies falls within that role. Heck, giving them what they need to combat this BS is its own form of hope.

So if the goal is to advance wildlife conservation for the benefit of wildlife and habitat, ...you need them in order to advance anything that you believe would be good for critters and crunchberries.

This moves my goalposts: I outlined some immutable values; which include conservation and habitat, but also include equitable allocation of our resources, regardless of class or creed. So yes, I want what is best for critters and crunchberries, but I also want what is best for hunters and anglers. All hunters and anglers. I'm not DU, and willing to dump someone like Don Thomas for speaking truth to power about public access, because that power gives DU money.

As far as needing them, that's a sticky wicket, there's no denying that. Maybe, one day, I will be willing to sacrifice my values in the name of compromise. But the benefit and return needs to be greater than that blow to my integrity. I honestly hope we never get to that point. I'm not in this for money or material gain; all I have are those values to stand on.

 

[TOGIE]

don't forget, when @Ben Lamb is talking (typing) to you, he's not always necessarily talking to you, but the person behind you.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Ben, you know full well that I can sit at a table and have an open mind, and I haven't disagreed with you saying there is value in first approaching seeking to understand. But it isn't either/or. There's a time to sit around and sing kumbaya, and there's a time to stand up for what is right. To quote the great Omar Little: "A man's got to have a code."

Where did I say that it was simply volume that has kept the worst at bay? I don't recall giving credit alone to the voices in the ring. But it's just as foolish to discount the power of many voices. Maybe it isn't working perfectly MT, but the Pebble Mine hasn't been opened in AK, and you cannot deny the power that many voices have wielded in fighting against that for the last 30 years.

The fastest way to end up like TX or UT will be death by a thousand "compromises": many bills and policies that do nothing for the public but continue to grant more power to those who already have it, under some false promise of "goodwill" in return. Those with power are never going to give it up, and giving them more with nothing in return, yet calling it a compromise, is no compromise at all.

I'm not advocating for grilling people in their homes, but I am advocating for understanding the root of the issues, being able to intelligently combat the underlying premises of those issues while having that discussion, and recognizing that you may walk away from the table without coming to an agreement.

UPOM and the Save the Cowboy campaign are not my people. Part of my role is to educate my people, then giving them the tools they need to counter the BS of UPOM and their cronies falls within that role. Heck, giving them what they need to combat this BS is its own form of hope.


This moves my goalposts: I outlined some immutable values; which include conservation and habitat, but also include equitable allocation of our resources, regardless of class or creed. So yes, I want what is best for critters and crunchberries, but I also want what is best for hunters and anglers. All hunters and anglers. I'm not DU, and willing to dump someone like Don Thomas for speaking truth to power about public access, because that power gives DU money.

As far as needing them, that's a sticky wicket, there's no denying that. Maybe, one day, I will be willing to sacrifice my values in the name of compromise. But the benefit and return needs to be greater than that blow to my integrity. I honestly hope we never get to that point. I'm not in this for money or material gain; all I have are those values to stand on.

I don't know you so I am not suggesting I know your heart, and I am not going to go line by line, but overall I feel like that much "gotta have a code", "combat", "walk away", "immutable values", "truth to power", "sacrifice my values", "blow to my integrity", etc. is the lingo of a self-oriented passionate advocate who has not fully learned to be an others-oriented super-effective impact player. The former is a dime a dozen, the later is rare and powerful. I suggest wise folks like @Ben Lamb can help a person make the journey from one to the other.

 

[elkduds]

Jake, respectfully, this approach is more akin to walking in to a bar and asking a guy why he's a dick, then expecting a civil conversation.



I hear stuff like from folks like CBD, Alliance for the Wild Rockies and yes, UPOM. If the goal is to make the world a better place for wildlife and wildlife habitat, then you have to be able to compromise and find solutions that advance the cause - conserving wildlife, even if it's incremental, or challenges your ideology. Every time something happens that people have a slight disagreement with, it gets turned into a personal assault on integrity and values. Passion and determination are core attributes that help make sure wildlife remain on the landscape. Petulance and animosity generally do not.



The candidate Montanans rejected is now the Lieutenant Governor (and likely will be for 4 more years). Does continuing to call that out even though she's been clear that's not on her radar help you advocate with that office or hurt you? Having been on the ground floor of the rallies going back to 2009, I can tell you that those rallies served their purpose; but anymore they tend to alienate rather than bring people to us. They've turned into anti-GOP events, not resource specific things. As for the bad bills that have died, it's not simply volume that does that. The core team of dedicated professionals who work those bills have more right to claim those kills than anyone else. The reality is that without the guidance of that paid, professional staff, membership is just a mob with little direction. For all of the bad bills that died in committee, just as many never got introduced because of that deep, inside the building work that has to happen to bring credibility to the movement. Grassroots effort, tied to competent representation at the legislature is how you achieve results. Noise alone is easy to ignore.

Steve Daines got LWCF permanently funded and reauthorized. He did that after being a skeptic for years and years and years. The thing that moved him off of no and to yes was direct and polite pressure from landowners who met quietly and personally with him. He didn't do it because NGO's in the conservation space were pounding him.



This isn't a conversation then. It's an interrogation. You may believe that you interrogate ideas, but the reality is that the their perception is you are interrogating people. Intent and perception are two very different things. These are kitchen table conversations, not cross-examinations.



The whole quote from Poz is "Never let your critics take your time or energy. Learn from criticism, but don’t let it distract you from your goal. You are never going to please any adversary or all your friends."

And that's solid advice.

Jim also has this in his rules: "When you talk to your people, preach hope and possibility. Eric Hoffer said revolution is built on hope, not despair. The conservation community is terrible for wailing on the peril of things - that inspire no one."

Doom & gloom may get clicks and form emails sent, but it does not provide hope, nor does it provide an avenue for trying to find middle ground. Meeting every action that you disagreed with in a similar fashion only reinforces the trenches, it doesn't gain ground.

So if the goal is to advance wildlife conservation for the benefit of wildlife and habitat, how does this approach bring those whom you disagree with closer to you? You've said they have the political power. That would mean you need them in order to advance anything that you believe would be good for critters and crunchberries. If the idea is that no compromise is acceptable, and that people would rather lose than compromise, then I think that's the fastest way to end up like TX or UT when it comes to license allocation and privitization.

Ben, you know full well that I can sit at a table and have an open mind, and I haven't disagreed with you saying there is value in first approaching seeking to understand. But it isn't either/or. There's a time to sit around and sing kumbaya, and there's a time to stand up for what is right. To quote the great Omar Little: "A man's got to have a code."

Where did I say that it was simply volume that has kept the worst at bay? I don't recall giving credit alone to the voices in the ring. But it's just as foolish to discount the power of many voices. Maybe it isn't working perfectly MT, but the Pebble Mine hasn't been opened in AK, and you cannot deny the power that many voices have wielded in fighting against that for the last 30 years.

The fastest way to end up like TX or UT will be death by a thousand "compromises": many bills and policies that do nothing for the public but continue to grant more power to those who already have it, under some false promise of "goodwill" in return. Those with power are never going to give it up, and giving them more with nothing in return, yet calling it a compromise, is no compromise at all.

I'm not advocating for grilling people in their homes, but I am advocating for understanding the root of the issues, being able to intelligently combat the underlying premises of those issues while having that discussion, and recognizing that you may walk away from the table without coming to an agreement.

UPOM and the Save the Cowboy campaign are not my people. Part of my role is to educate my people, then giving them the tools they need to counter the BS of UPOM and their cronies falls within that role. Heck, giving them what they need to combat this BS is its own form of hope.


This moves my goalposts: I outlined some immutable values; which include conservation and habitat, but also include equitable allocation of our resources, regardless of class or creed. So yes, I want what is best for critters and crunchberries, but I also want what is best for hunters and anglers. All hunters and anglers. I'm not DU, and willing to dump someone like Don Thomas for speaking truth to power about public access, because that power gives DU money.

As far as needing them, that's a sticky wicket, there's no denying that. Maybe, one day, I will be willing to sacrifice my values in the name of compromise. But the benefit and return needs to be greater than that blow to my integrity. I honestly hope we never get to that point. I'm not in this for money or material gain; all I have are those values to stand on.

The rest of us:


This is how to respectfully disagree. Brilliant.

 

[BrentD]

I don't know you so I am not suggesting I know your heart, and I am not going to go line by line, but overall I feel like that much "gotta have a code", "combat", "walk away", "immutable values", "truth to power", "sacrifice my values", "blow to my integrity", etc. is the lingo of a self-oriented passionate advocate who has not fully learned to be an others-oriented super-effective impact player. The former is a dime a dozen, the later is rare and powerful. I suggest wise folks like @Ben Lamb can help a person make the journey from one to the other.

I have a feeling both of you would get along fabulously in person. Esp. If @Ben Lamb is pouring the drinks. I'd just hang out on the fringe with an empty cup looking hopeful.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I gotta go to an anniversary dinner, but 2 things:

Jake is a helluva leader and I respect the hell out of him.

Omar references are needed waaaaaay more often.

 

[Elky Welky]

The rest of us:
View attachment 332539

This is how to respectfully disagree. Brilliant.

Believe it or not, I am enjoying this conversation, and I too have great respect towards @Ben Lamb. I really respect how he pushes me, and I will push back.

@VikingsGuy I'm not sure how to react to that, because I feel like defending myself personally would just come off as arrogant. Your point is well taken, however.

@BrentD I've had beers with Ben, and expect/hope I will again. We do get along just fine!