Steven Rinella and Rob Bishop

[NCSU_Lewis]

Just finished it. Unfortunately, nothing really surprised me with how it went. Typical political side stepping. You could definitely tell Rinella got under his skin when he brought up the budget issues being self inflicted to cause the demise of public land. But he certainly wouldn't admit it. Otherwise, taking everything he said with a healthy grain of salt and reinforcement that hes a slippery individual.

 

[Carnage2011]

I thought it was pretty well done. Bishop was more versed that I expected. Rinella knows his stuff, and approached it in with a very open stance.

 

[Nameless Range]

Schaaf was right. Bishop benefited from this. I understand the need to be diplomatic, and I even understand the need for koombya with fellow Americans who disagree with one another on important issues. As Rinella said, he's had many guests who are from the opposite side of the issues as Bishop, and he's let them speak. And so that is what Steve did; he let him speak. These are things Bishop said that went pretty much unchallenged:

"Preservation and Conservation mean no access."
"Land managers make arbitrary and capricious decisions to close land to everyone. They dont care if it hurts anyone. They do it just because."
"No one has ever talked about privatization."
"Land should be managed for the greatest access of people."

I understand letting someone speak their piece, but only if the goal is to then speak yours, which I'd guess Steve would say he does in his other shows. But functionally, from the standpoint of utility, unless a show is released refuting Bishop's statements, the anti public lands crowd just got a point. I think the idea that you should let someone speak and the listeners will be able to sort out the BS is a fallacious one that gives to much credit to peoples' ability to decipher the obfuscation that successful politicians are good at. Had Rinella nailed him to the wall it wouldn't have been pretty, but it would have right.

 

[MThuntr]

Bishop came out smelling like a rose.

 

[TheTone]

To me it was telling on Bishop's part how often he said federal land and not public land. He also came across to me as really liking to say "I" and enjoys the position of power he is in

 

[Sytes]

Bishop had good prep. Not his first rodeo... His staff would not be in favor of him losing clout and he is no rookie when "chatting" on subjects he has been well versed for his constituent's side of the action. As mentioned before... He shored up support - more than he had entering, it sure was not the other way around, least in my opinion.

 

[UTK14]

I guess I didn't listen to the same podcast. IMO Rinella was respectful and let Bishop talk, but I don't anticipate that this will be the last Rinella has to so say about this interview. Steve covered a variety of topics with him. If he were to angrily confront and condemn the 1st talking point, then Bishop never gets to the point where he tries to sell the b.s. about development as increasing access.

Bishop laid out his thought process on a variety of issues which is pretty clearly not aligned with mine or the best interests of sportsmen.

I disliked Bishop before the interview. I disliked him more after the interview and hearing what his thoughts about access and protections are. I still think it's a good thing the conversation happened.

 

[Irrelevant]

damnit guys, now I'll not looking forward to my drive home.

 

[JLS]

Why fret about it? IMO, Rinella gave Bishop a chance to paint himself for exactly what he is. Steve doesn't seem to be an "in your face" type of guy, who is going to throw down the gloves in the podcast.

You're not going to convince Rob Bishop he's wrong on a podcast. Nor are you going to change the minds of many (or any) of his supporters. What you CAN hope to do is bring the facts to the front and sway the folks who are largely uneducated about this whole mess and help them make an educated decision when it comes time to vote.

 

[Elkmagnet]

To me it was telling on Bishop's part how often he said federal land and not public land. He also came across to me as really liking to say "I" and enjoys the position of power he is in

"I have control of"

 

[Northwoods Labs]

Rinella: "So how long have you been in Congress?"
Bishop: "Far too long"

Ha....off to a good start. I agree with Bishop there.


All in all, it was as I thought it would be. Steve showed restraint (or at least I am hoping he was showing restraint) and I am not sure if it was a good thing or a bad thing. It would have certainly been more entertaining if Steve challenged Bishop more on some things, rather than just letting him ramble on and on. I came away with the feeling that most of the examples Bishop brought up as negative aspects of LWCF, access, federal lands, were anecdotal in nature with no real concrete proof that he was correct. I would have been calling bullshit on a lot of what was coming from Bishop's mouth.

 

[JDH]

Schaaf was right. Bishop benefited from this. I understand the need to be diplomatic, and I even understand the need for koombya with fellow Americans who disagree with one another on important issues. As Rinella said, he's had many guests who are from the opposite side of the issues as Bishop, and he's let them speak. And so that is what Steve did; he let him speak. These are things Bishop said that went pretty much unchallenged:

"Preservation and Conservation mean no access."
"Land managers make arbitrary and capricious decisions to close land to everyone. They dont care if it hurts anyone. They do it just because."
"No one has ever talked about privatization."
"Land should be managed for the greatest access of people."

I understand letting someone speak their piece, but only if the goal is to then speak yours, which I'd guess Steve would say he does in his other shows. But functionally, from the standpoint of utility, unless a show is released refuting Bishop's statements, the anti public lands crowd just got a point. I think the idea that you should let someone speak and the listeners will be able to sort out the BS is a fallacious one that gives to much credit to peoples' ability to decipher the obfuscation that successful politicians are good at. Had Rinella nailed him to the wall it wouldn't have been pretty, but it would have right.

I really hope there's going to be another episode where Steve refutes what Bishop said. I haven't listened to the whole thing but when they were discussing how the states provide better access all I could think about was how you can't camp on state lands in numerous states.

 

[TheTone]

I really hope there's going to be another episode where Steve refutes what Bishop said. I haven't listened to the whole thing but when they were discussing how the states provide better access all I could think about was how you can't camp on state lands in numerous states.

It would seem to me that the only thing Bishop regards as access is a road system

 

[bstrasheim55]

"I have control of"

I lost count of Bishop's "I"s and "me"s

 

[Wisco]

I really appreciate the image Steve portrays for pro-public lands outdoorsmen and women. He kept his head and had an honest (at least on his side...) discussion without bashing Bishop. That's the way people develop working relationships and actually problem-solve. It's probably my young, naive attitude, but I'm hopeful his respectful demeanor toward Bishop could keep his seat at least somewhat at the table for discussions going forward.

That being said, it's a bummer Steve wasn't able to call out Bishop's BS, side-stepping and generalizations (i.e. "they do it just because" -- what a crock...). Hopefully, he'll refute some of this or at least bring on Land/Callahan/etc... to rebuttal.

I do like getting prominent political voices on these podcasts, just to hear how they try to spin their points. It'd be fun if you could get a civilized debate going or some sort of round-table discussion on one of them.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I haven't had time to listen to the podcast yet, but there's a similarity to a cast that Randy did a few years ago with Rep. Gianforte.

Randy was polite, professional and let the guy talk about what he wanted too. He didn't take a side, and I applaud him for that. He did the same with Gov. Bullock.

Rinella has given us a weapon here. Bishop's words are not part of the public record. Take them and use them in the fight to protect public lands. Find the fallacies and point them out, often. And loudly.

You guys are the front lines. Fight like it.

 

[Strand]

It went about as I expected it to go. If anyone has listened to all of the MeatEater podcasts, you know Steve doesn't leave a lot of pause during a conversation and normally will take anyone to task, albeit in a very respectful manner, and I could definitely feel the restrain he was using in this conversation. I wish there was a video of the podcast, as I feel there were some facial expressions and gestures that would have been entertaining to see from both sides. I was a bit let down that he didn't tear into a Bishop on things already mentioned above, as he let Bishop have a few easy pot shots that shouldn't have gone unchecked.

What I'm hoping this does is open the door for more conversations, and maybe a little more intense conversation in the future. I would love to see a long form debate, but I'm not sure who you'd get to referee that one. Most political debates I've watched do little for the informed listeners. People that know little to nothing about the topics being debated walk away with what they feel is a better sense of the issue, siding with whoever had the most zippy one liner, and the educated folks get all riled up because neither side really answers the question because they're too busy trying to deliver their zippy one liners.

 

[hank4elk]

Bishop is a Politician,a sneaky experienced one.
I knew Steve would be going easy when Bishop started with I am all about public lands...blah blah right at the start with no correction.
Maybe I'll finish it if I have time in my busy schedule....

 

[Sytes]

What I'm hoping this does is open the door for more conversations...

This is the best aspect of discussions. Agree. Hopefully this does open for more dialogue. Problem come from the entrenched nitwits that demand all or nothing vs opportunities to find mutual ground. I.E. Stewardship programs, collaborative projects.

 

[jmveverka]

I'm not saying Rob Bishop was not guilty of politician speak and he is completely capable of saying what he thinks people want to hear--but lets be honest, as it was pointed out in the podcast, both sides of these issues are capable of inaccurate hyperbole. Bishop did make some sense on the LWCF - he never said he did not want to reauthorize it, but wants to reform it to ensure a balance of funds directed to state matching grants and other purposes. National monuments - he had the facts right about the history of the act and again wants to reform it, not repeal it - perhaps his proposal is too narrow (5,000 acres?), but the vagueness of the Antiquities act is something everyone can agree on. Same with reforms for ESA, does not have the answer, but knows it is not working as it should. On the "Access" definition being repurposed to mean "easy-access" ie the "elite hunter/wilderness" issue - I think Steve did a poor job of articulating what he was getting at and was unable to get Bishop to understand what his argument was.

State Transfer is the issue that Bishop was most concrete on and is one issue that you will not get him to budge on. He is a state transfer proponent - as are many in the GOP, considering it is in the party platform.

Overall Bishop did not say anything, other than the state transfer issue, that gives me heartburn. The interview was well done, with reasonable dialogue.

If only everyone on both sides of various issues kept an open mind and negotiated in good faith it would be easier to get things done in government. Certain issues are cold-dead-hands issues and they need to be, but when that applies to every issue we get what we have now--gridlock and widening partisan divides. How I long for the days of pork-barrell spending so we can actually get something accomplished.