Why the need for so many different sportsmen orgs?

[Stix]

#5151

Why is there a need amongst sportsmen, trad bowhunters included to start new groups that spread us thin in our efforts as sportsman to lobby for our individual causes? For example, what was the purpose of starting Compton Traditional Bowhunters, or the Professional Bowhunters society, and what do they do as small organizations then if those folks instead join the P&Y Club, or their state bowhunting organizations and try to guide legislation as a bigger group.

Or instead of joining RMEF, Mule Deer, NWTF etc., wouldn,t it be better to join an all inclusive group such as the Backcountry Hunters and Anglers that promotes outdoor rec and conservation for all groups? Just ranting, but aren’t we defeating the purpose by spreading ourselves too thin?

[Fallguy]

#37698

What you seem to be referring to is something on the order of the NRA. What normally happens with large organizations is they take on the big tent theory. They say that we can not judge how or what another chooses to shoot. Why do they do that? Money, big corporate money. When money gets involved it become a fundraising mechanism for politicians. It also becomes a way to drive a ideology to divide the electorate so groups with similar goals stay divided for the corporate and political party good.

Oh ya I went to the range today and shot a bunch of arrows for practice in preparation for the Rapids Traditional shoot this weekend. 😀

[Robin Conrads]

#37726

8) Let’s keep this more on the hunting/sportsmen topic and steer clear of the political generalizations as much as possible. We’ve done the NRA topic a number of times, let’s not go there. Please keep your answers focused on the original question.

I’m going fishing in the morning. Y’all behave!

[Doc Nock]

#37744

I image you were waxing a bit rhetorical in your questions, Stix…

but the whys of human behavior never seem to cease…

Why so many denominations after the Reformation?

Why did every denomination need to start their own colleges?

Why do some look down on glass backed bow shooters …?

…Or carbon versus wood arrows? Camo or plaid wool?

Perhaps as we all have passions, that leads to preferences, individual motivations to shoot, hunt, gather or the like, so we start to become more myopic and think that if it’s not “our way, then the highway?”

Why do some prefer blondes or brunettes? Do gentlemen REALLY prefer blondes? 😀 Do blondes REALLY have more fun?:lol:

This is a country of individualists. Its what made us tick and push the boundaries of frontier in the face of adversity…so perhaps, it’s in our coding to want things to be as WE SEE THEM?

Maybe we’re just a bunch of elitists that think our ways, preferences or chosen path should be the ONLY way and if not, we start our own group of like-minded folks.

There are no lack of opinions on the simplest of things within our own ranks of traditional archers? Broad head types, arrow material, FOC, Trophy hunting, paid access, Leasing…?

Seems were innately geared to “disagree” and then seek like-minded souls to hang with… but a good question to ponder

[Bruce Smithhammer]

#37791

Because at the end of the day, we don’t seem to be capable of escaping our tribal heritage. When the tribe gets too big, there seems to be a timeless urge to start a new one, even if it ends up being the same thing in the end.

On a more pragmatic level however, I think sometimes that small, local/regional orgs can be better suited to tackling local/regional issues than big, national-level orgs can. So there needs to be room for both. That’s a generality, but it does seem to be the case sometimes.

But I agree with your point, Steve – it does seem like there is a fair bit of redundancy and overlap (esp. at the national level), and many people I know are dues-paying members of many of the same multiple organizations. But it seems inevitable that someone gets dissatisfied with the way a certain group is doing things and wants to start something else. In the end, Pogo’s axiom rarely fails to come into play.

[Stix]

#38317

I’m not plugging for any particular organization, and the ones I mentioned were just for conversation purposes, but I guess the point of my original question is: doesn’t a strong, central organization have more teeth behind it’s bite then all of the loose small organization? It seems like a strong national organization with state chapters would have more “clout” with lawmakers than a loose knit group of small individual organizations.

[mgerard]

#38366

Seems to me, many LARGE, or central organizations lose touch with their mission and members look again for someone more closely aligned with their passions. That said, many of these organizations tend to work hand in hand on big issues, which seems to satisfy more, and in the end, shows larger support for the issues important to all of us.

[Doc Nock]

#38369

That is a good question to raise.

But all the “what ifs” in life are often good questions. The rub comes in “how would we know the answer?”

I know people who find fault in some or one of the BIG nationals…so they bolt. I am reminded of marriage: It’s hard enough for just 2 people to figure out how to get along, temper their individualism and focus on a harmonious compromise between them…when you get bigger and bigger and bigger…the view gets more broad and less specific.

When that happens, you’re not doing “site specific management” and we often see that problem arise with State Game agencies… what works one place is a disaster elsewhere.

I tend to believe we need both… local and national. But it’s hard to know when it’s too big and other views are needed. But you can only slice the pie so many times without cheating everyone a taste!

A conundrum for sure!

[Ralph]

#38425

“First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—

because I was not a communist;

Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—

because I was not a socialist;

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—

because I was not a trade unionist;

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—

because I was not a Jew;

Then they came for me—

and there was no one left to speak out for me.”

? Martin Niemöller

I’m a traditionalist, a lover of nature, a believer in what my thoughts are of right from wrong so I speak out where I can. Not always am I right nor always am I wrong and not always do my words come as I’d planned or hoped but my opinion is stated. Generally I try to be tactful but I find sometimes that people with their ears full of self don’t recognize tact so occasionally I need to be a bit blunt.

Tactfully blunt is a hard learned act and often not successful but I’m not walking away.

Little drops of water here and there can grow enough to burst a dam.

[Stix]

#38458

Doc Nock wrote: That is a good question to raise.

But all the “what ifs” in life are often good questions. The rub comes in “how would we know the answer?”

I know people who find fault in some or one of the BIG nationals…so they bolt. I am reminded of marriage: It’s hard enough for just 2 people to figure out how to get along, temper their individualism and focus on a harmonious compromise between them…when you get bigger and bigger and bigger…the view gets more broad and less specific.

When that happens, you’re not doing “site specific management” and we often see that problem arise with State Game agencies… what works one place is a disaster elsewhere.

I tend to believe we need both… local and national. But it’s hard to know when it’s too big and other views are needed. But you can only slice the pie so many times without cheating everyone a taste!

A conundrum for sure!

I think that a national organization with state chapters is a good example of having teeth where needed to recognize local issues, but have the full force of a national chapter behind them when there is a need for legislative lobbying.

[Bruce Smithhammer]

#38493

Stix wrote:

I think that a national organization with state chapters is a good example of having teeth where needed to recognize local issues, but have the full force of a national chapter behind them when there is a need for legislative lobbying.

I would agree….with the caveat that I’ve seen other national groups start out this way, but eventually still fall prey to the typical pitfalls that seem all too common with big NGOs – devolving into do-nothing “clubs” rather than being action and issues based (usually out of fear of alienating big donors), becoming too top-heavy and then as a result becoming obsessed with fundraising to continue to feed a large administration in an endless loop, or becoming an army of lawyers whose only tool seems to be one lawsuit after another so that they can put another feather in their cap.

The above may sounds a little cynical, but I’ve been involved on various levels with numerous non-profits for the last 20 years. And THIS is why I’m currently active with BHA. I believe we are on a very good path with a true, “boots on the ground” emphasis, and I think that we have a healthy mix of bigger-picture, national focus, combined with state and local level folks that know their local issues intimately and aren’t afraid to get their hands dirty. This is combined with a really committed and passionate membership, the likes of which I have not seen in many other organizations. Every time I go to a BHA gathering, I get re-energized by this.

[Col Mike]

#38924

There is so much good written here I hesitate to comment. But what the heck Mom is out fishing.:D

In my simple mind the group called BHA is probably the best that speaks our values–and I belong to many others and shorten my membership on a yearly basis.

Then this group on this forum–well It’s the only one I’m on I don’t think I have ever heard anything here but intelligent open minded give and take. So we as a tribe are also a voice and we have leaders like Hayes,Smithhammer,Petersen,mom.

Don’t know where I’m going with this but to say we should all hang in there and do our best on the National level but more importantly profess our values when we can at the local–just try not to be shot:evil:

Shot the bow today:D

Semper Fi

Mike

[Fallguy]

#39023

I’m sorry Mom, my point was not to bash the N!@ but to point out how a large organization losses it way as it is taken over for other purposes. Hope you had a Lovely Day fishing.:D A small intelligent and articulate group can get more done than a large we got to please them all one can.

[Robin Conrads]

#39779

Fallguy wrote: I’m sorry Mom, my point was not to bash the N!@ but to point out how a large organization losses it way as it is taken over for other purposes. Hope you had a Lovely Day fishing.:D A small intelligent and articulate group can get more done than a large we got to please them all one can.

Point taken. I didn’t mean to single you out in my warning, only to keep the topic on track. Thanks to all of you for a very interesting conversation. I had a great time fishing. Guess I should have shot my bow. 😉

[Ralph]

#39784

It’s OK with me if you used worms!!!!:D

[Author]

Posts