The Challenge Of Meaningful Engagement
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
"The world is run by those who show up." This truth is and has been a mantra that I've believed and exclaimed on more than one occasion. The challenge is translating those words into action.
Wherever you look there is opportunity for active engagement, although how those opportunities meet expectations for participants is part of the problem. Unfortunately, the ability to get involved for long-term "building up" of something is far more difficult than joining into an effort to tear-down. I think that's why a lot of citizen-activism is oriented to opposition, seeking to prevent -- rather than working together to create.
This past week, a meeting was held at my office to discuss the on-going effort of conservation of Sage Grouse and their sage brush home.
Nearly all of the persons around the table and those connected the compressed video, interactive hook-up, were people who get paid to be involved in activities like this. A couple of individuals fit into the group of citizens, who are involved without drawing a paycheck for participation, but they were (and are) a small minority of the whole group.
This isn't to say that those who are being paid to be involved aren't doing their very best in the interest of the bird, the habitat or the people who would be impacted if the Sage Grouse were to be listed. Members participating in this group effort do care about all of those things and come together to exchange their expertise because they care and want to make a difference.
Going back into rather distant history (perhaps as much as three or four years) a groundswell of citizen involvement came together, across Nevada and the Western United States, in an attempt to participate in a conservation planning activity like nothing that has ever been considered -- let alone carried out.
To the extent that local working groups were capable of doing so, a rather impressive set of game-plans were developed for conservation projects and activities aimed at dealing with improving the situations affecting Sage Grouse and their habitat.
Based on considerations of perceived and identified threats, these action plans were formulated to be the best proactive solutions that could be identified.
Since the time of the assembly of those multiple plans -- life and other stuff have happened.
After long, drawn out debates on how tall grass needed to grow...how livestock grazing might be a negative or a positive (if managed properly)...whether predator control would be a benefit to improving Sage Grouse numbers...so on and so forth -- most normal citizens grew tired of the endless and mind-numbing details, often dropping out of the loop of participation. As the plans were getting their final touches, some of the more dedicated got re-engaged to evaluate what was written and sign-off with a "yea, that's sort-of what we had in mind."
With the determination that the Sage Grouse listing was not warranted, the plans were advanced for the file somewhere and implementation became the responsibility of state and federal agencies.
Here in Nevada, after adopting the plan and feeling warm and fuzzy about how good "we" did...drought and landscape-destroying wildfires combined to really mess up some good work of outstanding "sitting around the table" thinking. A group of, "let's screw up natural resource use -- especially livestock grazing" folks pushed their agenda through their favorite court and the whole issue of whether Sage Grouse warranted listing is back in the "figuring it out stage".
As the planning process continues to evolve with newly identified threats (like alternative energy infrastructure) get worked on, the crowd of participants has thinned to only those die-hards who get paid to sit in meeting rooms.
Complaining about the way things are, isn't going to accomplish much. Attention needs to be directed at figuring out how, where and when citizen involvement can be the most effective. Your thoughts and insights would be welcomed!
"The world is run by those who show up." This truth is and has been a mantra that I've believed and exclaimed on more than one occasion. The challenge is translating those words into action.
Wherever you look there is opportunity for active engagement, although how those opportunities meet expectations for participants is part of the problem. Unfortunately, the ability to get involved for long-term "building up" of something is far more difficult than joining into an effort to tear-down. I think that's why a lot of citizen-activism is oriented to opposition, seeking to prevent -- rather than working together to create.
This past week, a meeting was held at my office to discuss the on-going effort of conservation of Sage Grouse and their sage brush home.
Nearly all of the persons around the table and those connected the compressed video, interactive hook-up, were people who get paid to be involved in activities like this. A couple of individuals fit into the group of citizens, who are involved without drawing a paycheck for participation, but they were (and are) a small minority of the whole group.
This isn't to say that those who are being paid to be involved aren't doing their very best in the interest of the bird, the habitat or the people who would be impacted if the Sage Grouse were to be listed. Members participating in this group effort do care about all of those things and come together to exchange their expertise because they care and want to make a difference.
Going back into rather distant history (perhaps as much as three or four years) a groundswell of citizen involvement came together, across Nevada and the Western United States, in an attempt to participate in a conservation planning activity like nothing that has ever been considered -- let alone carried out.
To the extent that local working groups were capable of doing so, a rather impressive set of game-plans were developed for conservation projects and activities aimed at dealing with improving the situations affecting Sage Grouse and their habitat.
Based on considerations of perceived and identified threats, these action plans were formulated to be the best proactive solutions that could be identified.
Since the time of the assembly of those multiple plans -- life and other stuff have happened.
After long, drawn out debates on how tall grass needed to grow...how livestock grazing might be a negative or a positive (if managed properly)...whether predator control would be a benefit to improving Sage Grouse numbers...so on and so forth -- most normal citizens grew tired of the endless and mind-numbing details, often dropping out of the loop of participation. As the plans were getting their final touches, some of the more dedicated got re-engaged to evaluate what was written and sign-off with a "yea, that's sort-of what we had in mind."
With the determination that the Sage Grouse listing was not warranted, the plans were advanced for the file somewhere and implementation became the responsibility of state and federal agencies.
Here in Nevada, after adopting the plan and feeling warm and fuzzy about how good "we" did...drought and landscape-destroying wildfires combined to really mess up some good work of outstanding "sitting around the table" thinking. A group of, "let's screw up natural resource use -- especially livestock grazing" folks pushed their agenda through their favorite court and the whole issue of whether Sage Grouse warranted listing is back in the "figuring it out stage".
As the planning process continues to evolve with newly identified threats (like alternative energy infrastructure) get worked on, the crowd of participants has thinned to only those die-hards who get paid to sit in meeting rooms.
Complaining about the way things are, isn't going to accomplish much. Attention needs to be directed at figuring out how, where and when citizen involvement can be the most effective. Your thoughts and insights would be welcomed!
Individual citizen participation is the heart of our representative process. For those that are being paid to attend those endless meetings, kudos to you. As one who has been involved in the past and will be involved again as time and funding allow, I agree whole-heartedly in the necessity for all of us to 'show up'. For too long, we have been complacent in our acceptance of whatever the 'powers to be' have handed us. For our beloved system of government to thrive and return to its original intents, we must all give up a little, whether it be in time, money, or both to 'show up' and take an active part in our government. To refuse to do so will eventually lead to us losing the opportunity.
Reply to this
I couldn't agree more Bevan - well said. If you're interested in an ELSM reunion will you contact me? wonkysnark@msn.com
Reply to this