I say this with all due respect, Tony, and to the others making similar comments. You are making assumptions when you say they (RMEF) are "doing nothing." You don't know what RMEF is doing or isn't doing on this or other bills.
I can assure you they are engaged. As much as I am not on the Board, I have had many calls with them on many of these issues during the legislative session. I had a call today. I had a call yesterday. I had a call on Sunday. I had plenty of calls over the last two months. These weren't social visits, rather calls to talk about these issues; calls to talk about what I am hearing from the Hunt Talk crowd and the rest of my audience.
To the others who are making RMEF comments or wondering about the RMEF approach, I provide this insight in hopes we can do as Ben suggests and quit firing inward.
I am not privy to all they are doing, as I am not on the Board and I no longer chair the Committee that deals with these issues. I do know they are engaged and they are engaging with the people who will be voting on these issues and those who are advising policy makers on these issues, and not just in Montana and not just at state levels.
Some say RMEF's behind the scenes legislative strategy is due to the influence of donors or outfitters. Donors concerns have no influence on how RMEF does their work. No single donor of RMEF has even .1% financial impact on RMEF. Too many diversified revenue sources to be influenced in that way. Outfitters total financial contribution to RMEF is very small. Concern over outfitter support has no impact on how RMEF makes these decisions. Or at least not when I was on the Board and I was chair of the Governmental Affairs Committee of a member of the Finance Committee. I suspect that has not changed.
If folks want to start another thread on how RMEF does their work compared to other groups, start a thread on that. It comes down to a difference in approach that each organization uses to exercise their influence.
I can tell you how it worked when I was on the Board and when I chaired the Committee in charge of these legislative and policy issues.
The Board's Governmental Affairs Committee met once a month to discuss the issues that were Federal policy and policy from the dozen+ elk states. Highly qualified staff brought the issues to the Committee for discussion. Board members used feedback from members to add to the topics brought forth by the staff. Staff did not have the permission to "go it alone" without approval from this committee. If some issues were deemed super important, I had the power to convene a special meeting of that Committee. Otherwise it was dealt with via the standard protocols of the organization.
There was one staff person at RMEF who dealt with these issues and they were surely maxed out to cover Federal issues and all the state issues. That person left last fall, a very inopportune time, given so many state legislatures meet in the winter. Last I knew, they were interviewing finalists for the position. This is a person you hire with extensive background in policy at both the Federal and State levels, so filling that position is not as simple as posting a notice on Monster.com. Unfortunate timing, for sure.
As far as the debate about using behind the scenes versus airing things out in public, that was a big lesson for me. When I came to the Board, I was a "take it to the people" and a "light them up" kind of guy. My expectations were much like is being expected from the comments I am reading here.
I got to see first-hand how behind the scenes could be far more effective in the long-term. I got to see how a more deliberate and strategic approach allowed invitation to participate no matter which party was in power and no matter what policy was at play. I saw how long-term relationships could be leveraged in ways I was not expecting. It was a big learning curve for me, but I came to accept the value, in spite of my inherent, "Kick 'em when you can" approach.
The number of issues RMEF helped with behind the scenes in the six years I was on the Board and the four years I chaired that Committee was remarkable. Yet, RMEF never made a single mention of any of them. Doing so runs the risk of jeopardizing key relationship and causing some to no longer trust an organization if that org operates with too much public flair.
There is surely a great need for the public grassroots rallying that we saw yesterday. It is invaluable to have groups that excel at that, also.
Does this approach make RMEF less nimble than some would like? Sure it does. I got all kinds of flack for the delays caused by formal protocols when I was on the Board. We are reading comments here reflecting such.
Does this more formal approach cause RMEF to be deliberate on the long-term mission and prevent some missteps they had made previously when they did not have the formal protocols on how to engage in these issues? Definitely. And when they do weigh in, it has a lot of impact.
To compare these legislative issues that pop up like gophers on a spring prairie to a well-funded ballot-box-biology initiative on wolves is like comparing apples and bike tires.
I'm no longer on the Board, so I can't confirm exactly how things happen at RMEF two years later. Being looped in on many discussions and having them seek my opinions, I do think it is still operating very much like it was when I was on the board and this Committee.
I do know they are following these issues. I know who they are talking to. They will continue to operate behind the scenes very effectively.
RMEF's strategy to not be the loud public critic on these legislative issues was a source of criticism when I was on the Board. I'll admit, it is frustrating to get hammered by good folks who disagree with that approach, as you know they mean well in their criticism. Yet, there is absolute value in having a well-respected organization fill that role while other groups work on the public grassroots effort.
Some will never be satisfied by that explanation I provided. I get that, as even while on the Board it took me some time to see the value in having groups doing both. I also get that no amount of explanation will likely change the minds of many who are critical of the RMEF approach when they want more of the public grassroots approach.
If folks want to start another thread to debate the merits of vocal grassroots pressure versus behind the scenes work or what mix/blend of the two is helpful, I am happy to chime in on another thread about that topic.
For now, this thread is about HB 505.
