RMEF stance on fed land transfer

[beginnerhunter]

Wow, lots of great thoughts here. I'm new to this issue and i am in the "southeast" kinda so I'll give you my perspective.

I had no idea until I saw OYOA and fresh tracks that there was such an interest in selling federal lands. Sure I'd see it deep within the bowels of libertarian websites but didn't know there was mainstream support. Most of my friends don't use public land a lot in AR since whitetail hunting requires so little land private to hunt successfully. Or folks just find a good lease. And honestly, most Easterners don't CARE about hunting in the West, so screw the federal lands. Perhaps talking about the risk to hiking and camping may bring in more support. IDK.

Seems to me the focus should be on the western public since it is often Western politicians pushing this. I don't understand why a Utah resident would be pumped about transfer of lands unless they thought they would benefit from it.

Also, there is a risk of causing so much white noise that people lose interest. The NRA has done that to me. The constant barrage of calls has started to turn me off to them. On the left, a similar thing is happening with the social justice issues: if everything is sexist, really nothing is sexist and the issue loses meaning. Maybe RMEF doesn't want to sound too much like a broken record.

 

[Elkmagnet]

Fin, my comment was not ment to be taken as criticism of you or rmef. I appreciate your efforts on our behalf. I just feel the word is not getting out to the masses. I believe that us "live to hunt guys" get it but the weekend warrior dosent.

While I totally understand that it will likely not happen my pie in the sky fix would be taking the money from one land purchase and running a national TV commercial debunking most of the myths pushed by the land grabbers. This is going to be the best way to sway public opinion.
I see the most effective option as being a state-specific commercial showing state land owned vs. Sold and federal land owned vs. Sold.

As Sawtooth said watching Ted Cruz pound Idaho with TV ads about how he's going to help us recover our public land was a nauseating experience but watching the chatter in the coffee shop pop back up was even more unbearable.

I would love to see the RMEF and other groups like BHA come together with outdoor recreation businesses to make a couple of 30 second TV commercials regarding the land transfer issue. Ted Cruz's two week IdahoTV blitz got his stance on the issue out to the public, even though he really didn't say anything in depth on the subject. If these groups could give the "sound bite" public a few more of the facts in a short TV ad, I think many more of them would realize how stupid this land transfer idea really is. Putting information on your web page or facebook page is a great start, but we need to educate the non-hunting public on how land transfer is going to affect their lives. Here in Idaho, I can't think of too many people that don't spend at least a few weeks each year recreating on public land. Even a billboard with a picture of an empty campground with no trespassing signs and the words saying "So now what are you going to do this weekend?" Or "Still think Selling off our Public Lands is a good idea? Happy Labor Day! would get the non-hunting public thinking.

Or rmef could organize occupy Colorado. October 2016 we could all dress in Orange prison jumpsuits and see if we can get some media attention. #Bringjerky

 

[Oak]

Or rmef could organize occupy Colorado. October 2016 we could all dress in Orange prison jumpsuits and see if we can get some media attention. #Bringjerky

Colorado....October...orange....you wouldn't even get noticed.

 

[quarterhorse]

As Elkmagnet said Cruz's TV commercial blitz in Idaho was hard to watch. Then the voters in Idaho voted for him. It just indicated to me that hunters as group are the minority, are uninformed, or are not engaged enough to vote. We made a showing a few weeks prior at the state capital building on the same land transfer topic then voted for the most prominent idiot in support of the idea for President. WTH?

As I see it RMEF and other conservation/environmental groups need to band together to educate their masses. Banding together probably means partnering with groups we may not usually be with - Idaho Conservation League, Sierra Club and so on who should be on the same page.

Hunters are in the minority with total votes. Then subtract those who do not participate or are uninformed and it gets worse.

This Transfer idea has traction at many state levels and with several Presidential candidates. For those who think it has no legs because Congress will step in are likely mistaken. I'm certain there is lots of congressional support getting lined up already.

 

[Elkmagnet]

Colorado....October...orange....you wouldn't even get noticed.

Or have we been doing it for years? Covertly.

 

[Big Fin]

Bringing the Cruz ad into this equation illustrates a very pertinent trend. Our hunting/access issues are being pulled over to the political arena. Non-profits are restricted in their political activities. The other side knows it, so that is where they want the game to be played.

I advocate the time is long since passed where hunters need to form their own 501(c)(4) organization to fight these battles. Then you have hardly any restrictions. You can take the gloves off and start knocking out political teeth. Until that happens, these groups know they have a huge advantage over groups, such as hunters, who rely on 501(c)(3) organizations for their advocacy.

We need to continue to inform all voters of the importance of this topic, but I would ask hunters to start thinking about forming and funding a 501(c)(4) organization that changes the way groups can come after our interests almost unopposed. And not just on the land transfer issue, but on many issues where the doctrine of Environmentalism is replacing the historic model of Conservation.

 

[Oneye]

As Elkmagnet said Cruz's TV commercial blitz in Idaho was hard to watch. Then the voters in Idaho voted for him. It just indicated to me that hunters as group are the minority, are uninformed, or are not engaged enough to vote. We made a showing a few weeks prior at the state capital building on the same land transfer topic then voted for the most prominent idiot in support of the idea for President. WTH?

As I see it RMEF and other conservation/environmental groups need to band together to educate their masses. Banding together probably means partnering with groups we may not usually be with - Idaho Conservation League, Sierra Club and so on who should be on the same page.

Hunters are in the minority with total votes. Then subtract those who do not participate or are uninformed and it gets worse.

This Transfer idea has traction at many state levels and with several Presidential candidates. For those who think it has no legs because Congress will step in are likely mistaken. I'm certain there is lots of congressional support getting lined up already.

I think it has most to do with being uniformed. Hunters might be a smaller segment of the population, but when we band together our voice can be heard. Aside from that you have the easy argument being made by the other side which is basically "feds bad" which has become to easy of an argument to convey and that is another issue. We as a country are frustrated with our federal government, so people like Cruz just throw out the words "federal overreach" and people just go with it. There are some things we need to fix in our government, there are some instances they overreach, public land is not one of them for the most part and the issues that exist can be taken care of. It also should be considered that, I do not believe the majority supports the transfer or sale of public lands, the majority just isn't concerned about it. Hikers, bikers, ATV enthusiasts, hunters, anglers, rock climbers, campers, environmentalists, all have a dog in this fight but our voice is not loud enough yet. This is a perfect situation to put our differences aside and end this discussion for good. Here's to hoping we do just that! Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance who I don't agree with on a lot of things has spent $150,000 and has been running ads in Utah to expose Rob Bishops terrible public lands initiative. They are quick commercials that get tot he point of him wanting to sell the lands to oil, gas, and other private interests. We all need to be as involved as we can, we need to unite all parties together, and get as many friends and people we know educated on the issue and end this. Again let me reiterate, put pressure on the NRA, they would be great to have on our side.

Here's one of their commercials, although an environmentalist organization, they are doing some good:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqT2IdFyQ5M&feature=youtu.be

 

[JoseCuervo]

Bringing the Cruz ad into this equation illustrates a very pertinent trend. Our hunting/access issues are being pulled over to the political arena. Non-profits are restricted in their political activities. The other side knows it, so that is where they want the game to be played.

I advocate the time is long since passed where hunters need to form their own 501(c)(4) organization to fight these battles. Then you have hardly any restrictions. You can take the gloves off and start knocking out political teeth. Until that happens, these groups know they have a huge advantage over groups, such as hunters, who rely on 501(c)(3) organizations for their advocacy.

We need to continue to inform all voters of the importance of this topic, but I would ask hunters to start thinking about forming and funding a 501(c)(4) organization that changes the way groups can come after our interests almost unopposed. And not just on the land transfer issue, but on many issues where the doctrine of Environmentalism is replacing the historic model of Conservation.

I have kicked around the idea of a "scoring" non-profit/foundation that would track legislators and legislation on a anti-hunting type of basis, that could put out report cards on a hunting basis.

I would think labeling legislators as a "anti-hunting" would get their attention, quickly.

 

[Big Fin]

I have kicked around the idea of a "scoring" non-profit/foundation that would track legislators and legislation on a anti-hunting type of basis, that could put out report cards on a hunting basis.

I would think labeling legislators as a "anti-hunting" would get their attention, quickly.

Trust me, it gets their attention very quickly. I've used that terminology on my podcast and you will get some very heated comments from those most offended. Yet, when you connect the two dots; 1) that the top reason for loss of hunters is access and 2) a politician is promoting an idea that will reduce millions and millions of acres of access, those dots quickly connect to be "anti-hunting."

As Grandma Clara would say, "Those most offended are those most offensive."

 

[mottlet]

Bringing the Cruz ad into this equation illustrates a very pertinent trend. Our hunting/access issues are being pulled over to the political arena. Non-profits are restricted in their political activities. The other side knows it, so that is where they want the game to be played.

I advocate the time is long since passed where hunters need to form their own 501(c)(4) organization to fight these battles. Then you have hardly any restrictions. You can take the gloves off and start knocking out political teeth. Until that happens, these groups know they have a huge advantage over groups, such as hunters, who rely on 501(c)(3) organizations for their advocacy.

We need to continue to inform all voters of the importance of this topic, but I would ask hunters to start thinking about forming and funding a 501(c)(4) organization that changes the way groups can come after our interests almost unopposed. And not just on the land transfer issue, but on many issues where the doctrine of Environmentalism is replacing the historic model of Conservation.

There have been sportsmen (c)4s. But they're hard to fund because lots of foundations won't let their dollars go towards independent expenditures and individual folks don't want to hear that conservatives are anti-hunting. And if you say that a liberal is anti-hunting, the reaction is just kinda like, "Well...yeah. We knew that." There's a pretty good argument that very few members of the U.S. Congress are actually pro-hunting and have the habitat/access/gun bona fides to back that up. Then the Rick Bermans and NRAs of the world start swinging the green decoy/liberal front group hammer and that's that. Not that you're buying many tv spots hitting Rob Bishop with a few thirty dollar memberships anyway. And that's all on top of the fact that most of the NGOs are hardly welcoming to any newcomers because the reality is simply that there is a very finite pool of "sportsmen" dollars from which the entire community must survive and try to grow.

FTR, I'd like to see RMEF call out the public lands transfer movement on the cover of Bugle. More social media presence on the issue would be good too.

 

[jryoung]

Bringing the Cruz ad into this equation illustrates a very pertinent trend. Our hunting/access issues are being pulled over to the political arena. Non-profits are restricted in their political activities. The other side knows it, so that is where they want the game to be played.

I advocate the time is long since passed where hunters need to form their own 501(c)(4) organization to fight these battles. Then you have hardly any restrictions. You can take the gloves off and start knocking out political teeth. Until that happens, these groups know they have a huge advantage over groups, such as hunters, who rely on 501(c)(3) organizations for their advocacy.

We need to continue to inform all voters of the importance of this topic, but I would ask hunters to start thinking about forming and funding a 501(c)(4) organization that changes the way groups can come after our interests almost unopposed. And not just on the land transfer issue, but on many issues where the doctrine of Environmentalism is replacing the historic model of Conservation.

Outside of personal donations, how does a c4 get funded? Do you think the hook and bullet industries would step up to the level needed?

Would the gun manufacturers step up on this front or stay more focused on gun rights issues? Would the large retailers get involved?

If the heavyweights in terms of balance sheets step in at only a modest level could a c4 get adequate funding from small businesses?

 

[Big Fin]

Outside of personal donations, how does a c4 get funded? Do you think the hook and bullet industries would step up to the level needed?

Would the gun manufacturers step up on this front or stay more focused on gun rights issues? Would the large retailers get involved?

If the heavyweights in terms of balance sheets step in at only a modest level could a c4 get adequate funding from small businesses?

Those are the big questions. Not sure I have answers to them. I know people who are investigating the feasibility and asking the right questions to the right people.

 

[Oak]

Well I like the direction this conversation is heading.

 

[jryoung]

Those are the big questions. Not sure I have answers to them. I know people who are investigating the feasibility and asking the right questions to the right people.

I would imagine fishing outfitters and many gear companies are disproportionally dependent on public stream access laws than hunting outfitters and gear companies are to public lands in the west. I know there are many exceptions, but just trying to frame who would get behind this when there are different users.

I'm thinking it's a matter of briding the east/west divide and how economically dependent the manufacturers and industries are on public land hunters and anglers.

 

[RobG]

I wonder if these guys going to come out of stealth mode http://www.montanahuntersandanglers.org

 

[BuzzH]

There has been some serious talk in Wyoming of forming sportsmens PAC's to support State Legislative candidates that are wildlife, hunting, fishing, and public lands friendly.

I think sending a few of those in the various State Legislatures that are anti-public lands and anti-sportsmen to the unemployment line would be a much easier lift and send a pretty big message that Sportsmen are serious.

Start there and continue to the National level once the State Legislatures are cleaned up.

 

[shoots-straight]

This conversation we're having is where we (Montana sportsman activists) ended up after the 63rd legislative session. This is why we formed a PAC. We are working on a legislative scorecard right now.

We meet with perspective candidates all over the state. Mostly on our own dime. My wife is losing enthusiasm for my travels, but I believe that those meetings have been very beneficial. When we meet with candidates we give them a survey, documents to educate themselves with, and usually spend some time with them talking about what ever it is they want. They are looking for sportsman endorsements, and we are looking for allies.

All this seems to pay off. Each legislative session sense our formation has been less of a battle. Far less bills to battle against. I know we are not the only reason but we are a part of that solution we are looking for.

As I said before, I'm the PAC treasurer and we don't get a lot of funding around the state to battle these bad people. Those that are the most active do so for the future generations that have yet to enjoy what we have.

We will be back on the road shortly as primary season is in full swing. If anyone wishes to be part of the interview team in your area feel free to give me a PM. I'll give you the data and information we use.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

That is great to get involved like that SS---kudos to ya!

 

[IlliniFIre]

Bringing the Cruz ad into this equation illustrates a very pertinent trend. Our hunting/access issues are being pulled over to the political arena. Non-profits are restricted in their political activities. The other side knows it, so that is where they want the game to be played.

I advocate the time is long since passed where hunters need to form their own 501(c)(4) organization to fight these battles. Then you have hardly any restrictions. You can take the gloves off and start knocking out political teeth. Until that happens, these groups know they have a huge advantage over groups, such as hunters, who rely on 501(c)(3) organizations for their advocacy.

We need to continue to inform all voters of the importance of this topic, but I would ask hunters to start thinking about forming and funding a 501(c)(4) organization that changes the way groups can come after our interests almost unopposed. And not just on the land transfer issue, but on many issues where the doctrine of Environmentalism is replacing the historic model of Conservation.

Is the Sportsmen's Alliance not the group for doing this? They are listed as a 501(c)(4) and also list RMEF as well as other groups as associates.

http://www.sportsmensalliance.org/about-sportsmens-alliance/national-associates/

 

[jryoung]

All I see from them is a focus on hunting rights issues, I don't recall ever seeing anything regarding the transfer of public land.