Stop Blaming Conservation Orgs

[Elky Welky]

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.

 

[Bambistew]

IMO they are a bro org devoted to antidevelopment. No middle ground, no compromise, just a no. Sorry I won't support them. TU at least will compromise and come to middle ground.

Best of luck to you, but I'm glad Hunt quietly is making an impact. BHA is IMO nothing more than the Sierra Club with guns.

 

[TOGIE]

i thought Hunt Quietly started out with some decent thoughts and points on problems in the hunting space that needed to be addressed.

it very quickly devolved into a very immature outfit that seems mostly hell bent on running a smear campaign against anyone and everyone.

after having deleted instagram i swear it's almost better to not have to see their bullshit anymore more than it is to have to see cammy boy's bullshit.

in before the lock.

 

[tjones]

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.

I appreciate the work all groups do but this statement is not accurate.

Just because you don't see it, or folks don't show up at commission meetings doesn't mean work is not getting done.

Much of the heavy lifting on proposals and season settings gets done well before the commission ever sees it.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I appreciate the work all groups do but this statement is not accurate.

Just because you don't see it, or folks don't show up at commission meetings doesn't mean work is not getting done.

Much of the heavy lifting is done well before the commission ever sees it.

Can you share examples of the heavy lifting?

Not trying to be obtuse, argumentative, or accusatory. Just seeking more understanding.

 

[Forkyfinder]

it very quickly devolved into a very immature outfit that seems mostly hell bent on running a smear campaign against anyone and everyone.

Exactly.

 

[SAJ-99]

I appreciate the work all groups do but this statement is not accurate.

Just because you don't see it, or folks don't show up at commission meetings doesn't mean work is not getting done.

Much of the heavy lifting is done well before the commission ever sees it.

I think this is true, but things can't be done quietly and still expect to get credit for doing it. It's a subtle difference that is probably more about managing public perception, which may or may not be worth the effort in most of those cases.

 

[SwaggyD]

in before the lock.

Me, too!

 

[Elky Welky]

I appreciate the work all groups do but this statement is not accurate.

Just because you don't see it, or folks don't show up at commission meetings doesn't mean work is not getting done.

Much of the heavy lifting is done well before the commission ever sees it.

The work these orgs, and others, are doing is what makes the biggest difference in MT's policies. That's my full quote.

And I'm talking specifically about the groups that are helping conservation. Absolutely, there are plenty of behind closed doors meetings with folks like the Stockgrowers, PERC, MOGA, other lobbyists, etc. and they have significant pull; usually in a direction far less favorable to MT's hunters and anglers. And I can only speak for BHA, but 90% of our work is done before we show up to the legislature and commission meetings, so you're correct. But when it goes before decision makers, when something will actually happen, these are the people that show up. If you give 90% and then don't see it past the finish line, you aren't actually accomplishing anything.

 

[tjones]

I think this is true, but things can't be done quietly and still expect to get credit for doing it. It's a subtle difference that is probably more about managing public perception, which may or may not be worth the effort in most of those cases.

The groups I know of doing the work are not looking for any credit.

 

[tjones]

The work these orgs, and others, are doing is what makes the biggest difference in MT's policies. That's my full quote.

And I'm talking specifically about the groups that are helping conservation. Absolutely, there are plenty of behind closed doors meetings with folks like the Stockgrowers, PERC, MOGA, other lobbyists, etc. and they have significant pull; usually in a direction far less favorable to MT's hunters and anglers. And I can only speak for BHA, but 90% of our work is done before we show up to the legislature and commission meetings, so you're correct. But when it goes before decision makers, when something will actually happen, these are the people that show up. If you give 90% and then don't see it past the finish line, you aren't actually accomplishing anything.

I am not talking about the groups you mention. I am talking sportsmen groups.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Can you share examples of the heavy lifting?

Not trying to be obtuse, argumentative, or accusatory. Just seeking more understanding.

Tony is too shy, so...
Ravalli CO Fish & Wildlife Assn has been at the forefront of issues as long as I've been involved (2007) and they're responsible for the mule deer LE districts in the Root, they were instrumental in swinging votes every single session I've been at with the Bitterroot contingent (one session we could just call Tony & Robert and the next day, boom, vote count we wanted).

Anaconda Sportsmens Club is responsible, along with Skyline Sportsmen's Club, for a ton of the WMA's down in the Big hole and Madison County/Beaverhead County and they were both instrumental in getting the stream access law and the state lands hunting laws passed. Currently, Anaconda was a leader in getting a lot of acreages added to existing WMAs around Fleecer, etc.

Anaconda Sportsmen have ran the Sportsman's Campground on the Big Hole since the 1950's at least (Boys coming home from war wanted a place close by so their weekends off from the Smelter were fun).

Hellgate Hunters & Anglers has done amazing work in R2 on elk issues, working with landowners and the agencey to improve hunting, reduce the use of shoulder seasons and give everyone a fair shake. They also host one of the best elk events in the state - State of the Elk.

Those small clubs were responsible for most of the elk reintroductions in the 50's, etc. They led on Roadless area conservation and they continue to work day in and day out with their local bios, wardens and commissioners to develop better management prescriptions.

When we put the call out for hunters, we go to these small rod and gun clubs because they show up, ever time.

 

[Elky Welky]

Tony is too shy, so...
Ravalli CO Fish & Wildlife Assn has been at the forefront of issues as long as I've been involved (2007) and they're responsible for the mule deer LE districts in the Root, they were instrumental in swinging votes every single session I've been at with the Bitterroot contingent (one session we could just call Tony and the next day, boom, vote count we wanted).

Anaconda Sportsmens Club is responsible, along with Skyline Sportsmen's Club, for a ton of the WMA's down in the Big hole and Madison County/Beaverhead County and they were both instrumental in getting the stream access law and the state lands hunting laws passed. Currently, Anaconda was a leader in getting a lot of acreages added to existing WMAs around Fleecer, etc.

Anaconda Sportsmen have ran the Sportsman's Campground on the Big Hole since the 1950's at least (Boys coming home from war wanted a place close by so their weekends off from the Smelter were fun).

Hellgate Hunters & Anglers has done amazing work in R2 on elk issues, working with landowners and the agencey to improve hunting, reduce the use of shoulder seasons and give everyone a fair shake. They also host one of the best elk events in the state - State of the Elk.

Those small clubs were responsible for most of the elk reintroductions in the 50's, etc. They led on Roadless area conservation and they continue to work day in and day out with their local bios, wardens and commissioners to develop better management prescriptions.

When we put the call out for hunters, we go to these small rod and gun clubs because they show up, ever time.

By "we" you are talking about MWF (you, last session Ben), and BHA. My quote included "and others" which seems to have been ignored. The small conservation orgs show up when "we" ask them to. Yes, they are consistent. But they aren't there every time. If it is an issue in their neck of the woods, sure.

Regardless, I'm sad that tjones has derailed this conversation on that technicality. This wasn't the point.

I'm not asking for credit @tjones. Credit means nothing, and most of the best conservationists are people we won't ever know the names of. If hunting in MT is still good 20, 40, 60 years from now, after we are all dead, that's all that matters.

 

[tjones]

By "we" you are talking about MWF (you, last session Ben), and BHA. My quote included "and others" which seems to have been ignored. The small conservation orgs show up when "we" ask them to. Yes, they are consistent. But they aren't there every time. If it is an issue in their neck of the woods, sure.

Regardless, I'm sad that tjones has derailed this conversation on that technicality. This wasn't the point.

I'm not asking for credit @tjones. Credit means nothing, and most of the best conservationists are people we won't ever know the names of. If hunting in MT is still good 20, 40, 60 years from now, after we are all dead, that's all that matters.

Nothing was derailed. Accuracy in posting and looking at the complete picture is important.

Thinking small groups show up just because MWF or BHA ask them to is silly.

These groups were around long before BHA was even a thought.

Again, I appreciate the work BHA, MWF and all groups do.


Carry on.

 

[Ben Lamb]

By "we" you are talking about MWF (you, last session Ben), and BHA. My quote included "and others" which seems to have been ignored. The small conservation orgs show up when "we" ask them to. Yes, they are consistent. But they aren't there every time. If it is an issue in their neck of the woods, sure.

Regardless, I'm sad that tjones has derailed this conversation on that technicality. This wasn't the point.

I'm not asking for credit @tjones. Credit means nothing, and most of the best conservationists are people we won't ever know the names of. If hunting in MT is still good 20, 40, 60 years from now, after we are all dead, that's all that matters.

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.

 

[KingOfTagSoup]

i thought Hunt Quietly started out with some decent thoughts and points on problems in the hunting space that needed to be addressed.

it very quickly devolved into a very immature outfit that seems mostly hell bent on running a smear campaign against anyone and everyone.

after having deleted instagram i swear it's almost better to not have to see their bullshit anymore more than it is to have to see cammy boy's bullshit.

in before the lock.

Not a bad point. They've voiced some valid concerns, but also some off the rails perspectives. And very few ideas for constructive solutions.

 

[Elky Welky]

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.

I appreciate it Ben. I'm working on it, which was the point of the post. It's just too tiring, and there's so much work to do.

As you know too well, I also love a good argument, and sometimes it's too easy to take the bait. Or be the bait.

 

[Nameless Range]

I can see where this thread is headed so I will be short.

I agree with Bambistew insofar as I think BHA has been naive and unrealistic in certain instances regarding development on the landscape, and it gives ammo to their critics.

I also strongly agree with Elky that there are damn few relative to what there should be out there speaking up for the working class when it comes to the allocation of hunting opportunity. When it comes to my relationship with hunting, that's as, if not more, important to my kids' future ability to hunt as anything. I have really appreciated their work on those issues and it's the chief reason I am an on and off member.

I have mused about the power of Local Rod and Gun Clubs as well as Local Working Groups, and whether that power is waning in this world of the internet, the crisis of a lack of volunteers in the widespread, and the general detachment of citizens from their local world. "Who's gonna fill their shoes" is a damn good question. The real danger I see for all of em, is when they become political, which because politics and that which we love are intertwined, is a seductive path.

Ultimately, I think relationships between real folks is where traction will be gained, and letters to the editor, emailing your representative, etc - they're almost things of the past in terms of utility.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I appreciate it Ben. I'm working on it, which was the point of the post. It's just too tiring, and there's so much work to do.

As you know too well, I also love a good argument, and sometimes it's too easy to take the bait. Or be the bait.

I would suggest some conservation funding edibles, but then we'd both get in trouble with the BATF and like, 1/2 of hunt talk.

 

[Ben Long]

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.

This^. Ben2 speaks smart. I always say, join a group that reflects your values. There are groups for about every possible niche. I don't care what group you join, just do something larger than yourself. Then have fun. But I have no time anymore for groups that tear each other down. I'm more interested in building something up.