To those expressing their anger, I ask, "If you are given three choices; Rob Bishop, Liz Cheney, and David Bernhardt, who you going to pick?"
All industry lapdogs and make no apologies about it. To the next level of sorting, two are devout anti-public land zealots, and one has committed he will work to increase and improve access and keep public lands in public hands.
You don't get to bring forth other choices. This is who you get to pick from. You probably don't have final say, but whoever it is, your mission fulfillment requires you work with the selected candidate. Who you going to pick and are you going to do what you can to work with them when possible?
It is easy to be on here or FB or other platforms and make claims about how bad this group is or that group is, etc. Speaking from experience, groups, including those bearing the wrath of anger here, don't have the luxury of doing that. They have to make due with whatever choices are available. Those groups have to hold working relationships with whoever is appointed. They could take their toys and go home until they get the "perfect" person at DOI or USDA or USFWS. And if they did that, in the interim, they would have no say in the matters important to their members and their mission. You have to be in the game to make a difference. Odds are the hand you get dealt is not a royal flush, rather a stiff that you hope to parlay into a better situation.
If people want to see improvement, I would suggest they start looking at what more they could have done to change the make up of a Congress that is most often times hostile, at their best, only disinterested, toward conservation and public land topics. More would be gained by committing to better outcomes in future elections. The current administration is completely disinterested in public land and conservation policy, offering those policy issues as rewards to Congressional allies who will help them on topics that the administration is interest in. Until then, expect the groups we all belong to be forced to make the best of less than perfect situations.
I can assure you that being on the inside isn't all rainbows and buttercups. It requires making inherently imperfect decisions and knowing some will be pissed at what is needed to give voice to your mission and your membership. Yet, if you are going to try your best to further your mission, you engage in the ugly process of policy making and take your beatings.
All industry lapdogs and make no apologies about it. To the next level of sorting, two are devout anti-public land zealots, and one has committed he will work to increase and improve access and keep public lands in public hands.
You don't get to bring forth other choices. This is who you get to pick from. You probably don't have final say, but whoever it is, your mission fulfillment requires you work with the selected candidate. Who you going to pick and are you going to do what you can to work with them when possible?
It is easy to be on here or FB or other platforms and make claims about how bad this group is or that group is, etc. Speaking from experience, groups, including those bearing the wrath of anger here, don't have the luxury of doing that. They have to make due with whatever choices are available. Those groups have to hold working relationships with whoever is appointed. They could take their toys and go home until they get the "perfect" person at DOI or USDA or USFWS. And if they did that, in the interim, they would have no say in the matters important to their members and their mission. You have to be in the game to make a difference. Odds are the hand you get dealt is not a royal flush, rather a stiff that you hope to parlay into a better situation.
If people want to see improvement, I would suggest they start looking at what more they could have done to change the make up of a Congress that is most often times hostile, at their best, only disinterested, toward conservation and public land topics. More would be gained by committing to better outcomes in future elections. The current administration is completely disinterested in public land and conservation policy, offering those policy issues as rewards to Congressional allies who will help them on topics that the administration is interest in. Until then, expect the groups we all belong to be forced to make the best of less than perfect situations.
I can assure you that being on the inside isn't all rainbows and buttercups. It requires making inherently imperfect decisions and knowing some will be pissed at what is needed to give voice to your mission and your membership. Yet, if you are going to try your best to further your mission, you engage in the ugly process of policy making and take your beatings.
