School funding

[Big Fin]

As said, John doe is not calling up a congressman or senator with the same weight as a lobbyist. He is not getting change done.

To your point below about strength in numbers; there is strength in numbers. If five people from back home call/email on the same topic, the CofS will look at it. If five more call or email on the same topic, the CofS is going to find out for him/herself. In smaller states, such as Montana, you're likely to get a meeting with the CofS. Gather enough people to weigh in on your issue and you will get a meeting with the Senator or Congressman.

Maybe in bigger states, it is a function of scale and the numbers are bigger to get on the radar screen. In western states I'm familiar with, the numbers needed to hit Congressional radar is pretty small.

Your comment implies a defeated acceptance of a fate that is unchangeable. I disagree with that.

Point of my OG post on this topic, why doesn't randy call up the BHA if they are so amazing and help out? Why doesn't he leverage, or you, the orgs that are so highly touted, so powerful, so influential? Strength in numbers right?

How do you know that hasn't happened?

I can assure you that the afternoon this came out I was on a call with groups in DC that are very effective. They were looking to bring pressure from the Democratic side of the aisle, as the tenor in DC is such that on these Cabinet-level issues that the greatest benefit comes from the opposition party of whoever holds the Whitehouse.

Calls were made. Within a day, a letter was crafted to DofE by a Senator asking for reversal of this policy. Pressure is continuing to be applied. Many groups are meeting and directing pressure in a strategic and coordinated manner, they just aren't doing it on IG or FB. These aren't just the critter groups, but industry groups and their lobbyists. The critter groups have the membership that, if activated, can bring pressure to raise the priority of a topic. The groups like NSSF and CSF have even more lobbyists who can leverage their contacts. To make change, we need both.

Again, you don't know if that has/hasn't happened. It doesn't happen on IG or FB. It doesn't happen with Letters to the Editor. It happens by building relationships over time. It happens when groups and orgs hear enough from members and participants that this should be one of their higher priorities.

Anyone who thinks that this stuff gets changed by ranting and raving on social media is uninformed. It happens when we do what a lot of the orgs ask of us - contact those elected officials. With a lot of pressure via contacts from members, these groups can then get their lobbyists the important time with that elected official.

It is interesting how many people I talk to and ask if they contacted their elected official, only to be told something of the tone, "Aw, it doesn't make any difference." That's how you lose the issues that are important to you as a community or group.

I know people get tired of it. I know there is fatigue about "contact your elected official." But, in the world of policy, which shares the same root word as politics, that is how change happens. The other sides aren’t giving up, rather they are tooling up for the next issue. We are at a crossroads, maybe past the crossroads, where apathy and defeatist attitudes in our community have become more pervasive.

Change doesn't happen overnight. We seem to have a society that if we call an elected official and change doesn't happen by the next morning, we give up and that becomes our excuse for disengaging. The other sides aren't giving up that easy. They are doubling down, knowing our side is more likely to give up.

I get it that some people feel it isn't worth the time, effort, and the friction that comes with advocating for our causes. If that is the tone that carries the day, we can expect more losses and bigger losses.

I'm the eternal optimist who feels that hunters and shooters have always risen to the task. I feel that same way today.

Arguing on a social media platform like Hunt Talk is not nearly as helpful as contacting your elected officials. Links here:

U.S. Senate: Contacting U.S. Senators

www.senate.gov

Find Your Representative | house.gov

www.house.gov

 

[CraneMan]

To your point below about strength in numbers; there is strength in numbers. If five people from back home call/email on the same topic, the CofS will look at it. If five more call or email on the same topic, the CofS is going to find out for him/herself. In smaller states, such as Montana, you're likely to get a meeting with the CofS. Gather enough people to weigh in on your issue and you will get a meeting with the Senator or Congressman.

Maybe in bigger states, it is a function of scale and the numbers are bigger to get on the radar screen. In western states I'm familiar with, the numbers needed to hit Congressional radar is pretty small.

Your comment implies a defeated acceptance of a fate that is unchangeable. I disagree with that.


How do you know that hasn't happened?

I can assure you that the afternoon this came out I was on a call with groups in DC that are very effective. They were looking to bring pressure from the Democratic side of the aisle, as the tenor in DC is such that on these Cabinet-level issues that the greatest benefit comes from the opposition party of whoever holds the Whitehouse.

Calls were made. Within a day, a letter was crafted to DofE by a Senator asking for reversal of this policy. Pressure is continuing to be applied. Many groups are meeting and directing pressure in a strategic and coordinated manner, they just aren't doing it on IG or FB. These aren't just the critter groups, but industry groups and their lobbyists. The critter groups have the membership that, if activated, can bring pressure to raise the priority of a topic. The groups like NSSF and CSF have even more lobbyists who can leverage their contacts. To make change, we need both.

Again, you don't know if that has/hasn't happened. It doesn't happen on IG or FB. It doesn't happen with Letters to the Editor. It happens by building relationships over time. It happens when groups and orgs hear enough from members and participants that this should be one of their higher priorities.

Anyone who thinks that this stuff gets changed by ranting and raving on social media is uninformed. It happens when we do what a lot of the orgs ask of us - contact those elected officials. With a lot of pressure via contacts from members, these groups can then get their lobbyists the important time with that elected official.

It is interesting how many people I talk to and ask if they contacted their elected official, only to be told something of the tone, "Aw, it doesn't make any difference." That's how you lose the issues that are important to you as a community or group.

I know people get tired of it. I know there is fatigue about "contact your elected official." But, in the world of policy, which shares the same root word as politics, that is how change happens. The other sides are giving up, rather they are tooling up for the next issue. We are at a crossroads, maybe past the crossroads, where apathy and defeatist attitudes in our community have become more pervasive.

Change doesn't happen overnight. We seem to have a society that if we call an elected official and change doesn't happen by the next morning, we give up and that becomes our excuse for disengaging. The other sides aren't giving up that easy. They are doubling down, knowing our side is more likely to give up.

I get it that some people feel it isn't worth the time, effort, and the friction that comes with advocating for our causes. If that is the tone that carries the day, we can expect more losses and bigger losses.

I'm the eternal optimist who feels that hunters and shooters have always risen to the task. I feel that same way today.

Arguing on a social media platform like Hunt Talk is not nearly as helpful as contacting your elected officials. Links here:

U.S. Senate: Contacting U.S. Senators

www.senate.gov

Find Your Representative | house.gov

www.house.gov

Best post of the decade! As someone who has sat on the Boards of a variety of sportsman's groups for over 30 years, I have watched this apathy slowly creep to the level it is. Think about it: Very little in this world improves or persists without involvement and effort from those who care about it, be that relationships, education, society, wildlife habitat, hell even a garden! Shit rarely just happens (think Teddy, P-R, CRP, etc, etc, etc.....). And no, I'm not talking about $30-40 memberships in organizations, I'm talking about involvement at a personal level and time committment. Local wildlife clubs and community based organizations are struggling to stay alive because nobody has the time anymore. We enjoy what we have today and are indebted to those who came before us who "cared" and were willing to make sacrifices for the future. It's our/your turn!

 

[Sytes]

I know there is fatigue about "contact your elected official." But, in the world of policy, which shares the same root word as politics, that is how change happens.

This.

May feel old however the entire intent behind those "we" hold to represent our interests it to make his/her buzzbox rattle off the table when something stings constituents.
Would sure be nice if people demanded their party stop feeding garbage for voters support though that's a whole 'nother can o worms...

@Beignet commented on this in another thread - the curiosity of how many here actually voice their position to representatives or rather rattle a keyboard on a public forum. Had me wonder the same. Email, phone... I'm on board even though come any election my phone lights up to no end! [Block] repeated every day. My email is cluttered with ham sliced responses and an occasional real response though a crap ton of political crap as my info is passed on to third party clubs, come election cycle.

There's value to voicing position here as there is following through with comments to our representatives. I've learned a great deal from other input here while formulating my comments. Many I disagree with on HT though tidbits are taken and reviewed further. While these threads turn to garbage, sifting thoughts from others is invaluable vs what, a single "Opinion" piece in some politically slanted newspaper? I'll sift this crap vs reading a single opinion piece.

Nature of the abused beast known as politics.

Blah, blah, blah.

 

[Irrelevant]

Is this the 3rd or the 4th thread on this topic? Sure seems like we're maxing the outrage meter on this one.

 

[Sytes]

Is this the 3rd or the 4th thread on this topic? Sure seems like we're maxing the outrage meter on this one.

 

[mottlet]

Your results are, what, based on the backing of unions or some such thing?

As said, John doe is not calling up a congressman or senator with the same weight as a lobbyist. He is not getting change done.

Its not happening. Period. John doe isn't getting past the receptionist, and best case, he's getting a tuesday at 8am with the office rep, more than likely not even getting to the CoS, best case they'll get the district chief back home.

Point of my OG post on this topic, why doesn't randy call up the BHA if they are so amazing and help out? Why doesn't he leverage, or you, the orgs that are so highly touted, so powerful, so influential? Strength in numbers right?

Youre big man on campus, I'll wait for the reasons yall arent doing that, just calling them up and getting that change you say is so easy, with all your successes afterall.

I'll wait, go on, seriously. You are the one man band with so much influence and successes at it, go call them up and be that change you tout.

But the minute you deflect from doing what you proclaim is so easy and successful at, you are just that, a shill. And I fully expect you to deflect and obfuscate.

---

Worst case though, the minions PMs should be good fodder again

Man, it's August. If you can't get face to face with your reps now, I question how badly you want to. They at home, doing every county fair bs event with a big enough flag in the background they can while the recess is kicking.

 

[trackerbacker]

To your point below about strength in numbers; there is strength in numbers. If five people from back home call/email on the same topic, the CofS will look at it. If five more call or email on the same topic, the CofS is going to find out for him/herself. In smaller states, such as Montana, you're likely to get a meeting with the CofS. Gather enough people to weigh in on your issue and you will get a meeting with the Senator or Congressman.

Maybe in bigger states, it is a function of scale and the numbers are bigger to get on the radar screen. In western states I'm familiar with, the numbers needed to hit Congressional radar is pretty small.

Your comment implies a defeated acceptance of a fate that is unchangeable. I disagree with that.


How do you know that hasn't happened?

I can assure you that the afternoon this came out I was on a call with groups in DC that are very effective. They were looking to bring pressure from the Democratic side of the aisle, as the tenor in DC is such that on these Cabinet-level issues that the greatest benefit comes from the opposition party of whoever holds the Whitehouse.

Calls were made. Within a day, a letter was crafted to DofE by a Senator asking for reversal of this policy. Pressure is continuing to be applied. Many groups are meeting and directing pressure in a strategic and coordinated manner, they just aren't doing it on IG or FB. These aren't just the critter groups, but industry groups and their lobbyists. The critter groups have the membership that, if activated, can bring pressure to raise the priority of a topic. The groups like NSSF and CSF have even more lobbyists who can leverage their contacts. To make change, we need both.

Again, you don't know if that has/hasn't happened. It doesn't happen on IG or FB. It doesn't happen with Letters to the Editor. It happens by building relationships over time. It happens when groups and orgs hear enough from members and participants that this should be one of their higher priorities.

Anyone who thinks that this stuff gets changed by ranting and raving on social media is uninformed. It happens when we do what a lot of the orgs ask of us - contact those elected officials. With a lot of pressure via contacts from members, these groups can then get their lobbyists the important time with that elected official.

It is interesting how many people I talk to and ask if they contacted their elected official, only to be told something of the tone, "Aw, it doesn't make any difference." That's how you lose the issues that are important to you as a community or group.

I know people get tired of it. I know there is fatigue about "contact your elected official." But, in the world of policy, which shares the same root word as politics, that is how change happens. The other sides aren’t giving up, rather they are tooling up for the next issue. We are at a crossroads, maybe past the crossroads, where apathy and defeatist attitudes in our community have become more pervasive.

Change doesn't happen overnight. We seem to have a society that if we call an elected official and change doesn't happen by the next morning, we give up and that becomes our excuse for disengaging. The other sides aren't giving up that easy. They are doubling down, knowing our side is more likely to give up.

I get it that some people feel it isn't worth the time, effort, and the friction that comes with advocating for our causes. If that is the tone that carries the day, we can expect more losses and bigger losses.

I'm the eternal optimist who feels that hunters and shooters have always risen to the task. I feel that same way today.

Arguing on a social media platform like Hunt Talk is not nearly as helpful as contacting your elected officials. Links here:

U.S. Senate: Contacting U.S. Senators

www.senate.gov

Find Your Representative | house.gov

www.house.gov

And quite exactly my point. A regular john doe is not calling anyone up, and getting change. Well, except BuzzH and $300 shoe budget, which let's be honest, thanks buzz for the $0.02/hr wage-but that's the reason, some are too dumb to save for shoes off a raise.

You can have as long a diatribe as you want, but you are not a john doe. Brownell is not a john doe. Rinella, even the whiny one, is not a john doe.

You can expect more emails about sending more money because that's the system. I don't like it, you clearly don't, and no amount of bickering will change it.

What's not going to help any change, comes from a very old saying. A very old saying many here, RS, 24, pick a forum for anything

"First the came for". Look it up, though I'd wager you're familiar.

The folks here hate
crossbows-
Bicycle
atv/utv
Strangers
Nonresidents
New hunters
Offroading

Akin to being "pro1a/2a" well except for a,b,c,d,e,f.

Then no, you aren't, you're a coward who hides and placates, and only muster enough strength for me not thee


But lets stop there at new people joining. Because thst is exactlythe point, strength in numbers. Members across many forums-this included and perhaps yourself, don't like new hunters under the "overcrowding"-yet not 1, not 1 person has suggested they wouldn't hunt, just that 'super secret my honeyhole not yours even though you clearly know" from the "public land owners" shirt wearing crowd don't want anyone but themselves hunting and certainly no one new.

What is most disgusting, is that-first they came for- quite evident. The next most disgusting and perhaps disingenuous is putting your money against yourself at national levels-thats the joke about BHA, at least, their history proves that enough.

Again-first they came for.

Your show, good, your style, calm, eternal optimist, I can't judge that.

But a person who's forum base implies the company he keeps-that can be judged. And if i



*the pm's-quite good but some of yall need to up your game*

 

[whatnot]

The irony of all of this is, the left generally goes after your firearms and the right goes after your public lands.

Its always going to be a fight!

Guess you've missed all those windmills and solar panels on public?

 

[Werty]

Guess you've missed all those windmills and solar panels on public?

Do understand what the definition of generally means?

 

[mmw194287]

Per the Biden Administration: ""The Department of Education continues to implement the law as developed by Congress. The department recognizes the limits this language may place on certain enrichment opportunities with ESEA funding,” a spokesperson said. “We are happy to provide technical assistance on legislative language to address this issue and restore allowability of ESEA funding for valuable enrichment opportunities for students, such as archery and hunter safety programs.”

@Big Fin In your conversations with decisionmakers, advocacy groups, etc., have you received any suggestion of how much money is at stake here? Or under what title of the ESEA shooting sports, hunter ed, archery programs, etc. have historically been funded? I would assume it is Title IV, Part A (enrichment programs) but I'm not an expert.

I find it baffling that there hasn't been any more information about the significance of this decision and I can't even confirm that ESEA funds have ever been used for these purposes. Every article simply states how many kids participate in archery and how many take hunter safety classes, but not how many would be prevented from doing so if the law isn't amended.

 

[Beignet]

I find it baffling that there hasn't been any more information about the significance of this decision and I can't even confirm that ESEA funds have ever been used for these purposes. Every article simply states how many kids participate in archery and how many take hunter safety classes, but not how many would be prevented from doing so if the law isn't amended.

It's funny that you mention this, using the old search engine it seems like a lot of hunter's ed is financed by the USFWS through Pittman-Robertson money and supplemented by state fish and game agencies, national non-profit orgs, etc.

It looks like the National Archery in Schools program is a privately funded non-profit. However, according to Charity Navigator they don't publish an audited financial statement on their website. Not sure if they ever received ESEA grants.

 

[Big Fin]

@Big Fin In your conversations with decisionmakers, advocacy groups, etc., have you received any suggestion of how much money is at stake here? Or under what title of the ESEA shooting sports, hunter ed, archery programs, etc. have historically been funded? I would assume it is Title IV, Part A (enrichment programs) but I'm not an expert.

That is a big question being asked. It is dependent upon how far the interpretation is going to be applied.

Is it only applied to a very narrow definition? Is it applied even broader to PE classes that teach archery? Is it applied to fund that indirectly benefit schools where these activities might occur as club sports? Does it apply to state sanctioned activities, say the Minnesota State High School Association clay target league, one of the fastest growing team sports in Minnesota? Does it apply even further than those examples where "dangerous weapons" of firearms, bows, and knives might be used, for whatever purpose or intention?

That's what many are trying to sort out. If one wants to apply the interpretation that Dept. of Ed. is making, it could be very expansive when applied in an indirect manner.

 

[Elky Welky]

Why doesn't he leverage, or you, the orgs that are so highly touted, so powerful, so influential? Strength in numbers right?

It actually works the exact opposite as stated here. These orgs are only as powerful as their numbers, and it isn't really their lobbyists that are getting things done. It's their grassroots members stepping up, making calls, paying attention, and getting involved. These groups can send emails and action alerts out to let membership know to get engaged, but the leadership and lobbyists in these groups are not the ones doing the work. Members pull the most weight, and lobbyists and leadership acts at the behest of their members.

And believe me, I've seen firsthand the kind of damage misguided lobbyists can do, but no matter what I'm still not this cynical. Representatives in a representative democracy answer to their constituents, and when enough constituents reach out, they pay attention.

 

[mmw194287]

That is a big question being asked. It is dependent upon how far the interpretation is going to be applied.

Is it only applied to a very narrow definition? Is it applied even broader to PE classes that teach archery? Is it applied to fund that indirectly benefit schools where these activities might occur as club sports? Does it apply to state sanctioned activities, say the Minnesota State High School Association clay target league, one of the fastest growing team sports in Minnesota? Does it apply even further than those examples where "dangerous weapons" of firearms, bows, and knives might be used, for whatever purpose or intention?

That's what many are trying to sort out. If one wants to apply the interpretation that Dept. of Ed. is making, it could be very expansive when applied in an indirect manner.

Thanks, Randy. I appreciate your reply.

I guess this is where I'm confused. It seems pretty clear to me that the Department is looking at the letter of the law which places certain prohibitions on certain funds (Per the administration's quote in the Helena IR committing to helping lawmakers fix the issue, "the Department recognizes the limits this language may place on certain enrichment opportunities with ESEA funding"). Unless I'm missing something, there is nothing from the Dept of Ed suggesting any future restrictions on local, state, and non-ESEA federal funds for these programs. Certainly a number of advocacy groups and news outlets have suggested as much, but it's 100% innuendo until we see the guidance document that apparently Fox News has in its possession but not provided for public review.

ESEA funding is subject to other prohibitions as well, to which the weapons language has simply been added. For instance, ESEA dollars can't be used to build schools or provide transportation services for students. Nonetheless, every single school that receives ESEA funding for various programs is still building and maintaining facilities, with local or state or other federal money. Schools that provide bus services to their students aren't denied ESEA grants or other forms of funding because they use non-ESEA funds for school buses. In order for this to have the spillover effect that many are suggesting it would (i.e., all schools with shooting sports lose other funds), we would have to imagine that the enforcement of one provision of the law is radically divorced from the way that the others have been for the past fifty years. And then we'd have to imagine that would stand a due process challenge in a court of law. And that's only if the administration is lying to us about providing technical assistance to lawmakers to make the necessary fix to the BSCA.

Until someone shows me where ESEA funding is supporting these programs currently, this all seems to be an exercise in hypotheticals. Can Sportsman's Alliance or SCI, who have getting the most media hits with this, provide us with a copy of the guidance document at the root of this controversy? Or identify the specific opportunities in specific places are jeopardized by this? Fox has said schools have already canceled programs, but they won't identify which schools? Seems like it'd be a pretty effective way of making their case if they could point to one specific program that will no longer receive funding. Can the National Archery in the Schools Program, which has been front and center in all of this coverage, tell us if their work is supported at all by ESEA dollars? And how much? The fact that they haven't raises my eyebrows.

Certainly the head of OPI here in Montana could readily tell us how this affects students here? But her press release on the issue didn't even explicitly say that ESEA funds are spent on archery, shooting sports, or hunter safety programs here in Montana.

Here's the thing about all of the coverage on this subject that bugs me...if it was revealed tomorrow that no ESEA funds have ever been used to support hunter ed, archery, shooting sports programs, and so this decision is moot, literally none of the articles that have been written would need to change any facts. Because none of them--not a single one--have made substantive claims about the impact of this specific decision. None have told us how important ESEA funds are to hunter ed, etc.

I haven't seen anything that would disprove the following scenario... A lawyer in the DoE is updating ESEA grant funding guidance per the new BSCA, and notes in a memo: "Just so everyone is aware, it has come to our attention that the prohibition on weapons training with ESEA funds doesn't have any carveouts. As our legal team was reviewing the potential implications, here's a list of programs that are problematic given the language of the law: hunter safety, archery, shooting sports. We need to see if any such programs turn up in the next round of grant applications." For all we know, the DoE guidance document might have flagged it as something that needed to be changed to prevent these programs from losing funding? We haven't seen it, so we don't know. [If you have, please share].

However, before the problem can be solved, someone sends that email to a producer at Fox News and 3, 2, 1...

Okay, now I'll take off my tinfoil hat

 

[trackerbacker]

It actually works the exact opposite as stated here. These orgs are only as powerful as their numbers, and it isn't really their lobbyists that are getting things done. It's their grassroots members stepping up, making calls, paying attention, and getting involved. These groups can send emails and action alerts out to let membership know to get engaged, but the leadership and lobbyists in these groups are not the ones doing the work. Members pull the most weight, and lobbyists and leadership acts at the behest of their members.

And believe me, I've seen firsthand the kind of damage misguided lobbyists can do, but no matter what I'm still not this cynical. Representatives in a representative democracy answer to their constituents, and when enough constituents reach out, they pay attention.

Wrong. They are as powerful only because of $, otherwise it'd be free to join. And I do believe you, it's much like the saying "if you like sausage....".

I've been in the meetings, the closed door meetings with Brady talking to the house freedom caucus,the prelude to tcja. Ive seen the deal brokered and planned to oust boehner.I've been there where at 930, the rep/Sen meets with the bankers association and at 1030, the credit unions. And if you know what I'm saying, you know

Ive also seen the house dems sit on the house floor, performing a sit in, and acting like whiny brats to take my Rights, your rights, away.

And i didnt see this as a staffer,.gov stooge, or elected official.

And we have representatives in a constitutional Republic. They should answer to us, but you and I are a number to them, by and large. That's the reality. From Massey, to Jordan, to Pelosi to aoc. Ginaforte to DeSantis.

They/you may go their thinking so, but there's a reason whips exist in politics.

Yal have fun, I'll step outta the thread as it's tertiary at this point.

 

[seeth07]

Wrong. They are as powerful only because of $, otherwise it'd be free to join.

They need to pay their big shots well! Don't get me wrong, hunting organizations such as RMEF, WSF, DU, etc. do a lot of great work and it all happens through the power the money but it would sure be nice if the CEO wasn't making 500k plus per year.

 

[Beignet]

I was just flipping through an article about how unproductive the House was this year. Among the whopping 27 bills that got passed was H.R. 5110, the Protecting Hunting Heritage and Education Act. It passed both chambers with overwhelming, nearly unanimous (one “nay” in the House), bipartisan support. It was signed into law by President Biden on Oct. 6, 2023.

Not sure that the usual outrage outlets reported on that. Thought an update would be in order.