Use Promo Code Randy for 20% off OutdoorClass

NGO hypothetical

Crazy Warrior

New member
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
17
Big Fin, you often say how hunters don't want to play in the world of politics. How that handicaps our cause because you can't score a touchdown from the bleachers. What do you think would have more clout and influence in the fight for public land advocacy? Non Government Organizations that are large, established, and many members (NRA, RMEF, BHA, etc.) Or would more abundant, smaller organizations, which are each focused on specific issues be effective? Conservation, public lands, hunting, fishing, and outdoor recreation advocacy needs to have organization, integrity, direction. How do we do a better job for this and what will be the rally cry that brings us together?
 
Interesting you ask this. It has come up in many discussions. Here are my thoughts and I am sure they are tainted by my life experiences. I suspect others would have a different perspective.

As for clout, the bigger groups surely have more clout. Yet, their clout is hard to use effectively in the political arena due to the organizational structure (NGO) needed for these groups to have credibility to grow membership, with that membership being what provides the clout.

As for effectiveness, I think smaller local or state-centric organizations are more effective with the money and resources they have. That is just a function of how smaller groups work, not a knock against big groups. I look at the small rod and gun clubs that gear up to become politically active and see a lot of result for the work they do. Many of them are not qualified non-profits, so they can enter the political fray without nearly the concern of the bigger groups. And they can focus on what is important to their smaller constituency. Large groups have huge diversity of interest/perspectives among their memberships, often affected by geographic cultures/norms. No matter what position these big groups take in State A, they are going to upset a portion of their membership in State J where the dynamics of the situation are different than exists in State A. Due to this situation, local or state groups can be more efficient, act quicker, and often can have greater influence with their elected leaders without having to worry how this will impact them in some other state.

That said, when you are dealing with national issues, a local or state group getting every politician in say, Montana, to jump up and down on behalf of keeping Federal Lands in public hands may not move the dial as much as a national effort by the big groups who can get 51% of Congress to see the importance of the issue. That is merely a function of national level issues and size needed to play at that level.

Both have a valuable place. I worry that the local and state-based groups might not get enough funding or attention and therefore that part of the equation gets overlooked, resulting in some overworked volunteers who are spread soooooo thin. If we lose those smaller local and state groups, we are in big trouble.

I would encourage any person wanting to be an advocate to start a local group. You will be very surprised how much impact you can have.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
110,813
Messages
1,935,400
Members
34,888
Latest member
Jack the bear
Back
Top