Thanks again Wes. I largely agree with your analysis of the Rule as largely i
ineffective window dressing. I'm sure many public land non-profits have a similar understanding. I'd like to see you explore the financial and political challenges these organizations face in trying to move more directly into the political fray; fragile funding streams, fear of lobbying prohibitions, grantor demands, etc. The basic political problem is obvious to all. How to address that problem within the conservation community ecosystem is not.
Even if an organization can't engage directly in politics it can work to better inform journalists off the record or on background. None of this stuff is hidden, it's shocking it's not more present in the material that reaches the public.
👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼 as a former staff member for a national public lands NGO, I applauded this explanation. But what's more, from my experience, is policy NGOs have communications running policy campaigns with very little actionable political strategy or outcomes other than frowning on a situation or a strongly worded letter.
Now hearing that the 2005 Bush administration rule that called for better management of motorized recreation on USFS lands may now be on the "hit list." Anyone else heard this?
A lot of talk of access for motorized use is just code for opening up areas to oil. There's already more permits than drilling taking place, a lot of this elimination of rules just has no further impact any more.
Could be. But there are some hard core motorized people in Utah. If you're not familiar, read up on the Recapture Canyon incidents on BLM land in southeast Utah's San Juan County. Yep, there has been a big surplus of approved permits in the West, still sitting on companies' balance sheets. "Drill, baby, drill" is just hot air.
Thanks again Wes. I largely agree with your analysis of the Rule as largely i
ineffective window dressing. I'm sure many public land non-profits have a similar understanding. I'd like to see you explore the financial and political challenges these organizations face in trying to move more directly into the political fray; fragile funding streams, fear of lobbying prohibitions, grantor demands, etc. The basic political problem is obvious to all. How to address that problem within the conservation community ecosystem is not.
Even if an organization can't engage directly in politics it can work to better inform journalists off the record or on background. None of this stuff is hidden, it's shocking it's not more present in the material that reaches the public.
Thank you for this realty check Wes
👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼 as a former staff member for a national public lands NGO, I applauded this explanation. But what's more, from my experience, is policy NGOs have communications running policy campaigns with very little actionable political strategy or outcomes other than frowning on a situation or a strongly worded letter.
Extremely illuminating
Now hearing that the 2005 Bush administration rule that called for better management of motorized recreation on USFS lands may now be on the "hit list." Anyone else heard this?
A lot of talk of access for motorized use is just code for opening up areas to oil. There's already more permits than drilling taking place, a lot of this elimination of rules just has no further impact any more.
Could be. But there are some hard core motorized people in Utah. If you're not familiar, read up on the Recapture Canyon incidents on BLM land in southeast Utah's San Juan County. Yep, there has been a big surplus of approved permits in the West, still sitting on companies' balance sheets. "Drill, baby, drill" is just hot air.
Yeah, I'm familiar.