Stop Blaming Conservation Orgs

[David Gough]

To some extent, sure - those groups getting the word is super important. In the case of MWF, it's people like Tony, Robert, etc who make up the board of that organization. MWF isn't really "an arm of the NWF, but an independent 501 (C)(3) that's been around since 1936, and was formed by those small groups. I tend to view MWF from the perspective of it being the conglomerate for those orgs. So in a lot of these instances, those groups have traditionally driven the process for MWF. Their board is made up of representatives from those clubs, etc.

The Skyline guys are another great example - they've been working on licensing issues around their neck of the woods with out any prodding. Most of them aren't just looking at the national stuff groups are, or tuned into the political space like those orgs. That's why those clubs affiliate with MWF or work closely with BHA.

Jake, just a friendly piece of advice from an old dog with too many scars from these fights- don't sweat what other people think. Do the work you are proud of and let the others squawk.

Last week, while thousands of hunters, @Big Fin, and @Ben Long gathered in Minneapolis for Rendezvous, I saw Hunt Quietly attack BHA over R3. They went through the last 4 Backcountry Journals and concluded that half the work BHA does is R3. How they decided that, I'm not too clear. I think they are qualifying any instance where 2 or more hunters gather as R3, whether it is for a stewardship project, a pint night, or whatever else. My question though, is why is it their job to police another conservation org, and that one specifically? Don't they have something better to do?

Which brings me to my bigger point. I'm exhausted trying to defend BHA and the work of grassroots volunteers on here and elsewhere. There are exactly two groups that I see show up for conservation in MT on a consistent basis, advocating in the legislature and at the commission meetings, and those are BHA and MWF (the Montana-based arm of the National Wildlife Federation). The work these orgs, and others, are doing is what makes the biggest difference in MT's policies.

BHA is not the problem. We advocate for public land, water, and wildlife. That doesn't make BHA inherently anti-private land, and the green decoys nonsense was long debunked as a smear campaign run by the extraction lobby, not rooted in any kind of fact. Many hunt talkers on here have a problem with MT-BHA raising money for mule deer conservation, and these are the exact same people complaining about mule deer management in MT. Potentially tens of thousands of dollars raised for mule deer management will go far further than complaining on a forum website.

I've raised this metaphor before and I will raise it again: please, stop throwing water on the firefighters and not the fire. No conservation group is going to do 100% of what you want them to do. I, personally, have found myself incredibly frustrated with a few of the more species-specific orgs for not showing up when I think they should. But I still am a member and support them. I don't publicly badmouth them, because I also believe in the other great work they are doing and I understand that we are on the same team. If you can find an org that does 80% of what you like, they are probably worth joining. And you can make far more of a difference in numbers regarding real policy, and even changing those orgs for the better if you want them to do more.

That's really all I've got left to say on the topic. I think the work we do probably stands alone. And with more work responsibilities on my plate in my day job, I simply don't have time to keep defending BHA on here and elsewhere. And the point being; I shouldn't have to. I prefer to spend my volunteer time on the policies and doing the good work, not defending it.

As the former chair for the Nevada Chapter of BHA I would like to echo Ben's thoughts. Do the work you're inspired to do and the hell with the rest.

Whether I was being labeled as some liberal hippy with the local old timers, pounding my fist with our wildlife commission, raising hell with national to realize the impact feral horses and burros are having across Nevada, or dealing with the MT chapter of BHA (some of their board members) about our chapter raffling off a semi-automatic shotgun...I had to focus on the mission of hunting, fishing, and trapping access across public lands.

I didn't agree with everything BHA did, or everything my chapter did, but as @Big Fin has talked about many times; a group that I would agree with 100% of the time would be a party of one.

 

[Elky Welky]

r dealing with the MT chapter of BHA (some of their board members) about our chapter raffling off a semi-automatic shotgun

Thanks David! Just to clarify, that was one member, and he had no support from the rest of the board on that because it was his issue, and he left because of it. We felt strongly that it isn't our job to police other chapters, and if someone is going to donate a gun to raffle and help the cause, who were we to judge?

 

[David Gough]

Thanks David! Just to clarify, that was one member, and he had no support from the rest of the board on that because it was his issue, and he left because of it. We felt strongly that it isn't our job to police other chapters, and if someone is going to donate a gun to raffle and help the cause, who were we to judge?

Yes, I remember talking to the MT chair about it. It was years ago and water under many bridges.

 

[Sytes]

The offended members and leaders call it "Blame". Others call it critiques from a member's perspective. Outsiders call it whatever the heck they'd like to define their dislike for x,y, or z action - or combination of...

I recall HT member critiques of RMEF over the course of my time here. I wasn't offended. Either I supported why I believe their actions, support the critique and shared my own thoughts to our RMEF leaders as a member, or was indifferent to the critique.

 

[SAJ-99]

The offended members and leaders call it "Blame". Others call it critiques from a member's perspective. Outsiders call it whatever the heck they'd like to define their dislike for x,y, or z action - or combination of...

I recall HT member critiques of RMEF over the course of my time here. I wasn't offended. Either I supported why I believe their actions, support the critique and shared my own thoughts to our RMEF leaders as a member, or was indifferent to the critique.

The internet has too much critiquing and not enough supporting.
We are all guilty of it to different degrees.

 

[Sytes]

The internet has too much critiquing and not enough supporting.
We are all guilty of it to different degrees.

Organizations embrace the fantastic $$$ social media brings... with that comes the suck. Embrace the suck.

 

[SAJ-99]

Organizations embrace the fantastic $$$ social media brings... with that comes the suck. Embrace the suck.

Why can't people embrace the idea that giving $35 to an organization doesn't mean they get everything they want? Hell, I will bet those bitching the most don't even give the $35.
Sorry, I'm a bit cynical today. I think we would all be better off if the internet went down permanently and people stopped giving completely uninformed opinions on everything.

 

[Sytes]

Wait... first amendment does not apply or only when it's praise from outside of the organization or when a member is a Sportsman or higher or better yet only when one is a life member?

Excuses...

 

[Elky Welky]

Why can't people embrace the idea that giving $35 to an organization doesn't mean they get everything they want? Hell, I will bet those bitching the most don't even give the $35.
Sorry, I'm a bit cynical today. I think we would all be better off if the internet went down permanently and people stopped giving completely uninformed opinions on everything.

I kinda enjoy the cynical @SAJ-99. And to be frank, I don't get my drive to volunteer for these causes from random people on the internet (I'd worry about anyone who does). It comes entirely from a lifetime of hunting and fishing in places I love, a deep care for these habitats and the species that live in them, the friends I have at my hunting camps and that I have made through this work, and from the satisfaction that comes with a sweat-soaked shirt after a fence-pull or when a deftly written article sways policy.

There are times when I log off this site when I truly wonder why I am even advocating for these people, and I have to remind myself that it isn't for the internet trolls, but for all the reasons above.

 

[KingOfTagSoup]

Real simple response to hunt quietly, IMO.

Matt's brother has been responsible (directly or indirectly) for about $200K in the corner crossing issue, where's Hunt Quietly been on the issue? I guess hiding under the bed with most the other groups.

That's why I don't really pay attention to the critics. They find a few things to pick the fly chit out of the pepper over while ignoring the big picture.

Don't have time for it.

 

[KingOfTagSoup]

i had to read that twice to not see "internal c*ck"

Same

 

[Forkyfinder]

The offended members and leaders call it "Blame". Others call it critiques from a member's perspective. Outsiders call it whatever the heck they'd like to define their dislike for x,y, or z action - or combination of...

I recall HT member critiques of RMEF over the course of my time here. I wasn't offended. Either I supported why I believe their actions, support the critique and shared my own thoughts to our RMEF leaders as a member, or was indifferent to the critique.

Trolling is a lot different than crtical feedback or a critique to make a postive difference.

Its apparent and obvious it isnt said to add value or improve.

 

[SAJ-99]

Wait... first amendment does not apply or only when it's praise from outside of the organization or when a member is a Sportsman or higher or better yet only when one is a life member?

Excuses...

First Amendment? This is about the government. It doesn't apply.
How about people use the old approach? If they want to complain about a conservation org, they can do it in a letter rather than on the internet. That is the problem. When Matt R does this stuff he isn't a conservationist first, he is an influencer. Same with Steve. They gets exposure on the clicks, but it doesn't help the cause. That doesn't mean anyone has to agree, just make it constructive.

 

[Pucky Freak]

Lifetime BHA member.

R3 is a ruse. It primarily benefits gear manufacturers. Secondarily it benefits G&F departments, influencers, and conservation organizations. It’s not clear to me if it is a boon or a bane for wild places and wildlife.

Some prominent conservation orgs have developed a growth strategy based on partnerships with conservation organizations outdoor companies, and a robust R3 push. Whether intentional or not, this strategy might ultimately undermine the stated conservation objectives of the organizations themselves.

“Blaming Conservation Orgs” …eh, seems there are far more people questioning the strategies of those organizations in the context of future threats to hunting access and wildlife populations. Matt R., despite his faults, has helped deconstruct the R3 narrative in a way that no one else has.

There are faults with every non-profit. I can live with faults when the groups are also doing some heavy lifting to accomplish conservation goals that require pooled resources. I plan on continuing to expand my lifetime memberships. A few of the groups I can get behind are RMEF, NWTF, Iowa Bowhunters Association, Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation, WyoFile, TNC, APR, and Sportsman’s Alliance.

 

[BuzzH]

Wait... first amendment does not apply or only when it's praise from outside of the organization or when a member is a Sportsman or higher or better yet only when one is a life member?

Excuses...

First amendment applies all right, say what you want about whatever org you think isn't doing things your way.

I'll take that complaint, critique, whatever you want to call it into consideration. If that's all you do, I'll respond in kind by simply ignoring it or giving it the proper 20 seconds of thought it deserves. Come to me with a complaint, critique, AND a solution, I'll be much more inclined to address it.

Complaints with no solution and no offer for the complainer to put their shoulder to the wheel? Just don't care, its white noise and IMO, needs zero consideration.

Complaining is simply hitting the easy button.

 

[TOGIE]

i bet if hunter numbers double proportionately across the nation tomorrow, meaning each state's number doubled, odds of things like lion hunting bans passing would decrease substantially.

this is why i'm not anti R3.

i've never heard matt address that side of the coin.

but admittedly i've completely tuned him out for a good while now.

 

[elkduds]

The internet has too much critiquing and not enough supporting.
We are all guilty of it to different degrees.

That's wrong and you suck

In fact I completely agree. The www is like life in this regard.

 

[Sytes]

How about people use the old approach? If they want to complain about a conservation org, they can do it in a letter rather than on the internet. That is the problem. When Matt R does this stuff he isn't a conservationist first, he is an influencer. Same with Steve. They gets exposure on the clicks, but it doesn't help the cause. That doesn't mean anyone has to agree, just make it constructive.

First amendment is a right to free speech not government speech. Public or internal, a person who's a member (or not) has a right to say whatever they desire on their own platform w/in the spectrum of the 1st.
That's what he did.
Calling it a blame vs criticism is a person's choice to define however they want.

If he was off his rocker, the supply / demand has a place - especially with "influencers".

Cynicism is a born product of wishing something that isn't within reality. You wish the Internet would shut down... Yet you're using the internet as we type. Cynical? Hypocritical? Or simply getting a few blue thumb pom poms, or a combination of such.

Nuts and bolts of this- Elky Welky has brought much more attention to Matt's platform.

Whining about blame yet BHA blames ballot box biology (some), organizations it opposes, O&G, republican representatives - righteous or not.

Nature of the internet beast. He's using the internet as well - For? Hopefull intent to turn more away from Matt than what he's sending Matt's way.

I care not. What I do know and can quote main hunt talk members who are BHA members/board members who've been critical of other conservation organizations.

bah, carry on.

 

[Elky Welky]

@Sytes Hunt Quietly spending their time attacking BHA over Hunt Quietly's definition of R3 is an example of a trend I'm seeing, here and elsewhere, of attacking conservation orgs and their volunteers instead of using one's platform/voice to advance our shared goals, focusing on the real issues, and pointing criticism where it will make a difference.

This specific instance was just the latest example, and really wasn't the point of the post.

 

[Gerald Martin]

For the record, I would like it to be acknowledged that when push comes to shove and everything falls apart, no one has done more to change the status quo with internet complaints, snarky sarcasm, memes and gifs than I. You are welcome for my service….