Trashing Sportsmen: Influence Spurs Smear Campaign via Hatch Mag

[DaveKile]

Thought this was a pretty interesting article of at Hatch

"It would appear that the energy and extraction industries are getting tired of the burgeoning influence sportsmen and women are wielding these days in the conservation arena, and they’re spending some money on a clandestine effort to besmirch a handful of nonprofit organizations that help give anglers and hunters a voice in today’s pivotal conservation debate..." More

I enjoyed the effort and information put forth in the article.

 

[djs12354]

Interesting reading. And somewhat frightening.

Thanks for the link.

 

[Rolf]

Thanks for this Dave.

 

[gulfgreyhound]

Thanks Dave for bringing this up.
The Tampa Tribune is a right leaning paper so to me it's not out of their agenda.
GG

 

[Chaz]

Thanks for posting this Dave, it is very definitely another strike against the media, that they don't check facts in any article or letter anymore. Whether it a conservative outlet or liberal outlet, no of them check the facts.
You've done us a service.

 

[SkyBlue]

Nice read.

 

[troutbert]

Very interesting. And I think it gives us some idea of where much political rhetoric comes from, not just in relation to stream conservation, but on other topics as well.

Deep-pocketed individuals and businesses pay people to disseminate distorted fear-smear messages.

And as others have said, even major newspapers are publishing this stuff, which is not good journalism.

 

[RLeep2]

This stuff is more complex than the simple "good guys/bad guys" extraction vs. conservation framing that it is getting here. To a certain extent, there is a thread of nativism or rural vs. urban/suburban conflict here as well. This should not be news to anyone, these same sentiments also provided a lot of the fuel for the wise use/property rights movements of the last 30 years.

No small number of rural folks are resentful of the urban/suburban types who come on the weekends to recreate and then go back home, all the while sending money to organizations dedicated to seeing that as little development as possible takes place in their weekend playgrounds. It isn't all that hard to convince these folks that they are being denied opportunities for better jobs and economic development by this situation. Doesn't matter that the notion is about an 85% falsehood. What matters is that it feels real to a lot of these folks who have been watching their towns die and their children move away for the last several decades. Extraction and anti-conservation interests have been able to tap into this anger over an inexorably changing demographic. Its a wolf in sheep's clothing sort of thing. A dead giveaway that this latest manifestation is just the most recent installment in the same old story is the bit in the Hatch Magazine story that notes that the letter writer always makes a point of praising homegrown conservation efforts. Its always the outsiders who are the bad guys the way this game is played.

 

[pcray1231]

Well said RLeeP.

My interest has always been in responsible development. Seems that always puts me in a lonely spot in between the industry shills who are paid to simply open up options, vs. the the hard-core environmentalists who seem to oppose all development at all costs.

Seems people pick a team and stay loyal to it regardless of the detail of the issue. Hence both sides call people like me an enemy!

But, FWIW, though I recognize this guy as an industry shill, I am the type who is receptive to this argument regarding organizations like TU, though the same fits for his organization, and he's living proof.

On both sides of every issue, you have honest decision makers looking for a solution acceptable to all sides, and they work TOGETHER. These are your locals. But the public side of the debate is simply PR. They all have their wing which intends to draw unreasonable lines in the sand and go to war over them. Polarizing the public makes headlines, therefore flames emotions, and therefore wins supporters and brings in $$$$. That's the outsiders and outside money.

ANWAR is a great example. Since the oil's expensive, drillers don't even want to drill it in our lifetimes. But man, they'll fight tooth and nail over their "right" to it! And for the environmental side, for gosh sakes. So of all the battles to fight, they choose this one. To deny companies from being able to put a hole in the ground in some frozen tundra where no people live and the wildlife density is about as low as it gets, and despite the fact that those companies don't actually intend to do it anyway?

It's a nice example because there are no locals, on either side. It's just the outside money/PR wings having an argument for the sake of having an argument. Why does it even get discussed before anyone indicates they plan to apply for a drilling permit? I'll tell you why. Because both sides are making money hand over fist by arguing.

 

[afishinado]

RLeep2 wrote:
This stuff is more complex than the simple "good guys/bad guys" extraction vs. conservation framing that it is getting here. To a certain extent, there is a thread of nativism or rural vs. urban/suburban conflict here as well. This should not be news to anyone, these same sentiments also provided a lot of the fuel for the wise use/property rights movements of the last 30 years.

No small number of rural folks are resentful of the urban/suburban types who come on the weekends to recreate and then go back home, all the while sending money to organizations dedicated to seeing that as little development as possible takes place in their weekend playgrounds. It isn't all that hard to convince these folks that they are being denied opportunities for better jobs and economic development by this situation. Doesn't matter that the notion is about an 85% falsehood. What matters is that it feels real to a lot of these folks who have been watching their towns die and their children move away for the last several decades. Extraction and anti-conservation interests have been able to tap into this anger over an inexorably changing demographic. Its a wolf in sheep's clothing sort of thing. A dead giveaway that this latest manifestation is just the most recent installment in the same old story is the bit in the Hatch Magazine story that notes that the letter writer always makes a point of praising homegrown conservation efforts. Its always the outsiders who are the bad guys the way this game is played.

The entire situation is very complex. The above is one side. But, I was born and raised close to ground zero for the gas rush in upstate PA. I know many folks up there are very resentful of the construction and what they feel is actually the destruction of their rural community.

Many have lived there and owned land for generations. Now new roads cut are being cut through the forest along with pipelines and compression stations, heavy machinery and all the resulting truck traffic on the roads.

There are places like bars, restaurants and even stores that the locals frequent where the gas company people are not welcomed. I know more than a few people that work in the gas industry up there, and they tell me they get hassled by the locals just for walking in the door in certain places.

Also the situation pits neighbor against neighbor, since some have sold or leased their land, while others are against "selling out" as they put it.

Very complex. Polarizing, to say the least.

 

[troutbert]

afishinado wrote:

RLeep2 wrote:
This stuff is more complex than the simple "good guys/bad guys" extraction vs. conservation framing that it is getting here. To a certain extent, there is a thread of nativism or rural vs. urban/suburban conflict here as well. This should not be news to anyone, these same sentiments also provided a lot of the fuel for the wise use/property rights movements of the last 30 years.

No small number of rural folks are resentful of the urban/suburban types who come on the weekends to recreate and then go back home, all the while sending money to organizations dedicated to seeing that as little development as possible takes place in their weekend playgrounds. It isn't all that hard to convince these folks that they are being denied opportunities for better jobs and economic development by this situation. Doesn't matter that the notion is about an 85% falsehood. What matters is that it feels real to a lot of these folks who have been watching their towns die and their children move away for the last several decades. Extraction and anti-conservation interests have been able to tap into this anger over an inexorably changing demographic. Its a wolf in sheep's clothing sort of thing. A dead giveaway that this latest manifestation is just the most recent installment in the same old story is the bit in the Hatch Magazine story that notes that the letter writer always makes a point of praising homegrown conservation efforts. Its always the outsiders who are the bad guys the way this game is played.

The entire situation is very complex. The above is one side. But, I was born and raised close to ground zero for the gas rush in upstate PA. I know many folks up there are very resentful of the construction and what they feel is actually the destruction of their rural community.

Many have lived there and owned land for generations. Now new roads cut are being cut through the forest along with pipelines and compression stations, heavy machinery and all the resulting truck traffic on the roads.

There are places like bars, restaurants and even stores that the locals frequent where the gas company people are not welcomed. I know more than a few people that work in the gas industry up there, and they tell me they get hassled by the locals just for walking in the door in certain places.

Also the situation pits neighbor against neighbor, since some have sold or leased their land, while others are against "selling out" as they put it.

Very complex. Polarizing, to say the least.

Those local tensions are no doubt as you describe them.

But what the OP talks about is professional writers paid by industry to spread a negative and distorted (IMHO) message about conservation groups such as Trout Unlimited, Izaak Walton League, etc.

And these paid for political messages appearing in the newspapers AS IF they were just grass roots citizens writing their concerns.

It's not illegal, but it seems dishonest to me for someone being paid by industry to represent themselves as just a regular citizen in a letter to the editor, without disclosing that they are being paid to write the letter, and who they are working for.

The article does a good service in letting us know about this.

 

[wgmiller]

It's like a form of what the Koch brothers have done to American politics...

 

[greenlander]

Chaz wrote:
Thanks for posting this Dave, it is very definitely another strike against the media, that they don't check facts in any article or letter anymore. Whether it a conservative outlet or liberal outlet, no of them check the facts.
You've done us a service.

Well, SOME outlets check facts. Trust me. ;-)