I'm a regular member so don't vote for 2nd VP, but I would urge everyone to consider forward-thinking candidates rather than well-meaning gentlemen who want to turn back the clock to bygone days that aren't coming back.
When 25% of hunters drop out, and with the average age of P&Y members now approaching 50, and considering millennials are not "joiners", the club will be lucky to maintain current levels. Same for B&C and SCI.
I predict that those three clubs will eventually merge and have separate records categories. That's the only realistic path for survival, considering the realities and demographic trends.
Meantime, as I've advised candidates I've corresponded with, the club needs to recruit officers or hire staff who understand communications technology, are in touch with millennial values and habits, and can develop ways to show real value to address the reasons for the membership churn. The fact that candidates are still sending out paper letters to all members via snail mail, each with .47 postage, in this era of instant virtual communication, illustrates just how far removed the club is from reality. Thousands of dollars wasted on 19th century technology...
Otherwise, what value does it provide? Make a special trip to the spithole backwater village of Chatfield to visit the museum? Whenever I've been there it has been empty. There is huge turnover after two years (following entry of an animal), and club officers can't figure out why? Hello...
I often wonder if my $150 annual dues would be better spent by giving directly to organizations like RMEF, WSF, etc..
But show that list to anyone under about 35 years old and they'll shrug and check their phone for Instagram, FB, or texts from friends. That's the problem. Wonderful organization that isn't relevant to the younger folks who aren't joining. And the $60,000 budget for grants is pretty weak for as much as P&Y purports to do. For comparison, the little local fishing program of which I'm president, which promotes kids fishing and wounded veterans fishing, has an annual revenue/budget of around $85,000.
I'm sorry if my rant offends some. But some of the letters I'm getting from candidates now have made me question the relevance and future of the club. As I told a couple of them with whom I've corresponded, I would get involved but I am already on three boards and two other volunteer organizations, none of which have ugly internal infighting, and which have direct, demonstrable results.
If Jim Willem is lurking this thread, he may want to comment as to P&Y booth activity and results at DSC.
We're not going to change the world. There are groups like RMEF, another group I'm a member of, that take dollars with the express purpose of putting them to use for elk habitat. That's not why the P&Y Club was formed and it's not its purpose. The P&Y Club was formed to bring passionate bowhunters together and promote bowhunting in North America, which is what P&Y has been doing since it's inception. It's a club, not a foundation.
As far as the millennials, you old guys need to stop worrying about them. When you're all dead, we'll bring the millennials in just as us Gen X guys have been brought in and believe me, we'll have a lot more leeway to do it too! The millennials will be different people once they grow up and hit 40. And BTW, the youngest Fred Bear Society inductee ever is not from the greatest generation, not a Baby Boomer, he's not from Gen X, he's a Millennial. So so much for them being disconnected from the Club.
Lou makes a lot of good points as far as moving the Club into the 21st century. This will all happen.
As far as the future of the Club, I don't share the gloom and doom. As long as there is freedom in America and Canada, there will be hunting. As long as there are wild lands where wild animals roam, there will be men and women chasing them with stick and string. And as long as there's bowhunting, there will be a P&Y Club.
I agree mostly with Lou's comments.
I believe the largest issue currently is a fractured board. We don’t have any chance of moving Bowhunting forward until we can unite behind leadership. Everyone speaks of unity but there doesn’t appear to be any room for compromise.
I will continue to support the club and recruit new members. I believe it would be relatively easy to double our membership if we united behind this purpose. All we have to do is recruit one new member each.
If you PM me I will pay for 10 new members to join as a first step.
Please signup one member each and then vote. It is our club.
It does great things for conservation, and that is what it should be,,,,, we have to get back to remembering, the books are for honoring the animal, not the hunter,,,,,,,
I like all groups that are for habitat improvement, conservation, and keeping public land public,,,,,,,,,,
I dislike the many groups who behind close doors, argue about what weapon was used, the pettiness of traditional shooters vs compound shooters,,, I never will understand that
We are looking at 6k members ....how many bowhunters are in North America? we don’t even need the real number, because it doesn’t matter. Six thound members probably represents a fraction of 1 percent. If P&Y is the face of bowhunting then we need to take a long hard look at ourselves in the mirror, because we obviously aren’t effectly at getting our message out. We have little to no commonality with the average bowhunter.
My state organization lost my interest because there was a lack of leadership. Plus it was leaning towards traditional bow elitism. I don't care for that and will not give my money to an organization that even sniffs of elitism.
I will openly admit that the conventions are priced a bit rich for my liking. My wife and I have to pick and choose between which banquets/dinners we attend and the amount of nights we stay. I do love the camaraderie and the friends I've met through P&Y. I'll support it as long as it doesn't dip into my families way of life.
Again... I think recruitment is the biggest hurdle and always struggle with this. By the way...most people these days love the convenience of paying with a card online. Can this be reinstated?
One question, if P&Y entry is honoring the animal and NOT the hunter, why does the choice of archery weapon even matter? The dead animal could care less? As some may ask "what difference does it make ? "
I'll take a stab at that from a personal perspective. It is about honoring the animal. BUT it is also about honoring the hunters skills, dedication or maybe even luck in taking that animal. And I'm good with that. Actually I'm happy about that!! Because that means we have not lost that connection to our distant fore-bearers that had to succeed or die along with their families and villages. Hunting with success was vital and was celebrated. And the hunter was celebrated!
With their bellies full of meat they would watch and listen as the one being honored would take a burning stick from the roasting fire and start to draw out the hunt on the stone wall. The bigger the pile of meat the more the accolades. Trophy hunting!!
Move ahead and you have the same scenes played out on tepee coverings. Did Ishi or his family paint the celebration on stone walls. Did they publicly display the results of their personal success on their clothing.
Can you imagine the MVP at the Superbowl being announced with no face and no name?!
Sorry, but recognition is hardwired into us. It pushes us to be better. Now, you can get all philosophical and introspective and claim to be hunting for only yourself out of the pure joy of it and there can be truth to it. But then why are you on here? Even posting on this thread demonstrates a desire to have your opinion (and therefore self) recognized.
I have no problem recognizing people for their accomplishments. The detractors are often those that have not accomplished much to be recognized for. They have the "everybody should get a ribbon" mindset. Celebrating mediocrity.
Que the indignation.
Some great discussion on the challenges P&Y faces moving forward.
You know, to keep the membership from doing what the membership wants. That has pitfalls and plus’s.
The perfect government is a wise and compassionate dictator. Cheap, efficient and fair, benefiting everyone.
And I'd bet that if we could get more people to come to the biannual conferences, we'd have a ton more members. If you're a fence sitter about joining, come to a conference and see for yourself.
1. The club is viewed by far too many as the record keeping organization only. If people aren't interested in trophies or keeping score they dismiss the club right off the bat. The club needs to rebrand itself as the defender and spokesmen of ethical fair chase archery hunting and move away from being seen as solely a record keeping entity.
2. The membership structure is archaic and outdated. The club should be driven by a board which is elected by the membership. No presidents and vice presidents, etc. A board of accomplished and well spoken bowhunters selected by their peers.
3. The club has a terrible social media presence. Me and the same other 50 guys are the only ones sharing/liking/etc their posts. You have people on instagram and other platforms that are reaching 100's of thousands. We need to modernize and promote the club more vigorously through social media channels to spark interest in the younger hunters.
I could come up with a few more but this is a good start. We all want what is best for bowhunting and the PY Club is ultimately good for bowhunting. We just need to keep promoting it and start heading in the right direction.
Without a doubt the club needs to find a way to build on the commonality of as many bowhunters as possible. The question is how do we bring more bowhunters Into the fold and then how to we retain them? Bringing new members in will only happen if bowhunter see value in membership, that’s the first step. They have to value the membership more the the money it takes to join. After that first step then the hard part ensues. we need to foster an sense of belonging, ownership and personal identification as club member. They Will only stay a member if they feel like a member. The current membership structure doesn’t accomplish that. A perfect illustration is the gap between 200 reg members an 5000 general members. How many of those general members are qualified to be regular members under the current rules structure? I am sure many. And why haven’t they taken the time and effort to become regular members, simply because they don’t value their membership more then the time an effort it take to become a regular member. We need to look at this as a club failure and own up to it. Only then can we address it when can find solutions and grow.
Ned...Did you ever leave your room at GSCO? ;)
The general population likely only join to enter an animal. There is that aspect, the draw to enter your name in the record book. Nothing wrong with that. It's not a bad recruitment tool as those folks would not likely even consider being a member otherwise. Hopefully once exposed they can be retained. Otherwise the focus on recruitment likely should be on that 10-20% of the dedicated and passionate that will join, stay and hopefully become active.
Alot of good ideas being floated around here. Change is needed in any healthy org, and can be slow. But it is changing, adapting. When I went to the AZ convention one of the big changes was expanding the "outfitter" section to include other archery vendors. Nearly to a member I heard positive comments to that expansion. Those are the kinds of things that make the club stronger, get some excitement generated. Other changes as well seem to be moving in the right direction.
I don't agree with some of the gloom and doom, not at all. The convention I went to was literally to capacity and the excitement and attitudes were very positive, I don't recall much if any gloom or doom. WRT the demographics..... I also don't recall being to many conventions that weren't what you might call an older crowd. They tend to have more time and able to afford the expenses better. That's not an indicator of decline..... it again is simply reality.
I will continue to help in any way I can because I find P&Y to be the most important bowhunting organization in NA. And this is coming from someone that will have to wait longer to advance from regular to senior member than anyone in the recent history. For any faults, P&Y is very important.
As I wrote in an article for The Ethic, “Not every Bowhunter is for Pope & Young, but Pope & Young is for every Bowhunter.”
Just like the Game and Fish departments on a national scale, I don't have an answer about how to recruit younger folks into the fold. Nothing they've tried has worked. They openly admit that. But while the P&Y club is a great "club", There are some steps that could be taken to be more welcoming to younger folks. For instance, I don't know of any organization that has open elections which only allows a small fraction of the members to vote, and those members are mostly going to be "old timers" by virtue of the regular and senior membership rules. Inclusion vs. exclusion. An "Associate member" is a "member", but not really.
On the flip-side, that structure ensures that only SERIOUS members are allowed to vote, not the Johnny-Come-Lately who just entered a whitetail and will drop out after the second year, as is too common now. I can say that as an Associate Member I felt like I was on the outside looking in. Voting privilege was the primary reason why I became a Regular Member (following the nasty internal strife of the past few years), and we pay a premium for that privilege.
The concern I expressed in my post was referencing some long-time influential members and candidates for office who openly want to turn back the clock, and in doing so will alienate those whom we need to recruit.
I have attended 6 conventions, made contributions to the trust fund, made donations to the museum and have donated time at some of the events. I have given my time and money because I am passionate about bowhunting. When I attended my first convention and went to my first member meeting I was “an associate” member. It that Associate meeting room was Pete Shepley, Michelle Eicher and Larry D. Jones. When I looked at these bow hunters/bow huntress and knew of all the animals they had taken with a bow and the wealth of bowhunting experience that had, I knew then that that the “echelon level” membership was not for me. To celebrate my 25th year of membership I became a Life General Member.
Membership ranking in a hunting organization to me is BS.! I did not join a bowhunting organization to compare notches on my bow limbs with another bowhunter bow limbs. I know some Regular members and Senior members who have absolutely done nothing for the organization. They met their “kill” requirement of 1 record animal/3 kills or 3 record animals/5 kills and put some membership time in gained passage to Regular or Senior membership, respectively.
With my length of time of membership, I know and have known many of the current and present officers, Senior members and Regular members and I have never been knowingly be looked down on and sneered because of my membership level. If I were, I have enough savvy to handle the situation and would not hesitate “explaining how a cow eats cabbage” with that individual(s).
I agree with others that I have to get “the scuttle butt” of what’s happening in P&Y via second hand or gossip instead of direct through club news or meeting . At the last convention in St. Louis, the Regular and Senior membership got updates on what was going on with the club organization and the prior elections. I guess the leadership didn’t think the General (old Associate Member) “couldn’t handle truth” as they were denied the information that was shared in the Regular/Senior meeting.
Interestingly, the General membership makes up the bulk of the membership. I understand about having vested interest, this can and has become a sticking point and somewhat of an obstacle for many. I can see how a potential member could be turned off with possible never being able to vote for leadership, especially when being raised in a democratic society. The P&Y election system makes the Electoral College for president of the United States look appealing.
I could go “maybe” go along with a minimum of 5 yr. membership requirement before being able to vote for officers such as president or vice president or an officer to show a commitment to the organization, but because of an “echelon membership levels” if a person elects to never pursue Regular membership, he/she will never have the opportunity. I for one am not willing to “pay” for that privilege via Regular member status to vote for leadership.
When I was in college I was in a fraternity. When I joined the fraternity, I understood that I would have to serve time as a “pledge” but when I fulfilled the membership requirements I became an “active.” At that point my vote as a “new active” member had the same value and weight as an active who had more “active time” than me. I was an active member! Thankfully the P&Y leadership wised up to limiting Regular and Senior membership limitations, hopefully in time the leadership will wise up to the ridiculous “echelon level” voting privileges system.
I am passionate about hunting, conservation and the right to bear arms. I hold life memberships in the MS Bowhunters Association, Dallas Safari Club and the National Rifle Association. There are no “echelon levels” to vote for leadership. I am a member of SCI and there are no “echelon levels” to vote for membership. I am working toward life membership in that organization, not because of voting privileges, but for what the organization stands for and does for hunters and wildlife conservation.
I understand about the cost of attending conventions that has been mentioned. A young member and especially one with a family, the related convention costs and time away from work could be prohibited. I can also remember when I was young; the cost of a convention vs. the cost of going on a hunt was a no-brainer, I could care less about a convention- I was going hunting. Now that I am retired, my biggest decision is how many days do I go before the convention starts and where do I travel to after the convention on vacation before returning home. Financial and family matters can change over time.
Hopefully, the leadership will share information with all of the members, not just a select few. I honestly think the General members, who comprise the bulk of the membership, can “handle the truth.” This measure would greatly improve leadership image, allow for transparency within the organization, which will in turn improve trust and dispel gossip and laundering of organization problems on social media outlets.
I concur that every communication mechanism available should be used with communications for all aged members and potential members.
I agree with Bigdan,. When I die I will probably not be known as member of P&Y. I certainly will not be known as a “General” or “Regular” or “Senior” of P&Y. I will simply be known as hunter who loved to bow hunt, who loved to be around other bowhunters and loved to spend time in God’s blessing of the outdoors.
Julie understands the Club from the inside out. She knows more about the Club and has spent more hours involved in the Club, than any candidate (for any position), other than Glenn Hisey. Approximately 30,000 hours. You see, she worked full-time for the Pope & Young Club for 14 years. She stopped working for the Club in 2014, when she was pregnant with her second child, due to wanting to be at home more with the children. For the last 8 years of her time at the Club, she commuted just over an hour to work each way. That's dedication, and love of the job - cause I can promise you, it wasn't about the pay. She is the candidate for 2nd VP that for 14 years answered your questions, helped solve your problems, made sure your materials arrived to you in a timely manner, and assisted you on the phone, at conventions, and at the office.
I find it odd that people are pointing out that millennials aren't joiners and that the average age of members is 50 years old, and yet they are campaigning for a soon to be 50 year old man. Julie is an actual millennial woman, according to wikipedia (she was born in 1980). This woman is in tune with social media. As a matter of fact, this woman is the one who originally started the Club's social media presence a couple of years prior to the Club hiring Rick Mowery as Communications and Marketing Manager. She championed the use the of social media, and saw the Club's facebook page through it's early days.
I'm not sure where anyone is getting the idea that Julie would have archaic ideas, be out of touch with current events in the bowhunting world, or just be running because she has an axe to grind. I can tell you the week following Julie's first bow harvest 6 1/2 years ago, she asked how soon could she run for 2nd VP. This has been her goal for many years, and others are just making up reasons to discredit her.
Please read her resume, and make your own decision, based upon who you think would be the best candidate.
Jaquomo, I highly doubt that a presidential candidate agreed with you saying he was out of touch. I think you misread something. I just asked Glenn, and he said that I could share his exact reply to you. "Thank you for your response. I think that you are correct in your assessment of younger bowhunters. Old differs like me will soon die off so we need to be thinking how to attract the next bunch. The Club needs you and other forward thinking people to get involved. Thanks." I don't read anywhere in here that he is agreeing he is out of touch.
I'm surprised no one else has pointed out that the new bylaws dictates that the only way the Regular/Senior candidates are allowed to contact the membership during the election is by USPS mailing, and only one time, or by individual phone calls. They are not allowed to send mass emails. Also, this mailing is at their own expense, and they are not wasting the Club's money.
I take a lot of offense at your derogatory comment about the backwater spithole village that I grew up in. It's so nice of you to offer your knowledgeable opinion when you have clearly spent a lot of time in my hometown, met its population, visited its schools, and attended its churches. I wonder if I spent a day in your town once every few years, if you would think I could pass fair judgement? I wonder if I spent an hour once every few years watching a building, if I could make an accurate estimation of the number of visitors in a year? Lastly, perhaps you weren't a member back then, but the members are the ones who voted to purchase the property in Chatfield and to move the museum there. This is no one person's fault or agenda. This is something the majority of voting members chose. Please remember the facts before you spread your hate. Karla Hamersma
Since you took the liberty of posting the response to a private email I sent in confidence to Glenn, I will post my entire letter to him. I believe what you (and Glenn) did in deciding to make it public without my permission is the epitome of unethical behavior, and solidifies my opposition to Glenn for president. Here you go:
First of all, I want to thank you for your many years of dedicated service to the Pope and Young Club. You and Kevin were huge contributors to the growth of the club, and it is much appreciated. I was very sorry for your loss of Kevin, and grateful for his huge contributions to bowhunting as well. Losing my wife unexpectedly this past November just as I was leaving for a deer hunt changed my entire perspective on life.
I read with objective interest your letter seeking the position of president. I wanted to share some thoughts with you. First of all, some background. I’m a regular member and have been a strong supporter of the club. I’m a bowhunting writer and speaker, have shot a bow for 55 years, have bowhunted big game for 47 years with longbows, recurves, and occasionally a compound. I will be 64 years old in May.
I’ve been studying the demographics and trends in hunting and bowhunting for several years, and give banquet speeches to bowhunting clubs on the topic. From the thoughts expressed in your letter, I don’t believe you understand the nature of today’s bowhunters. My primary question to you is, what is the value of the club to Millennial bowhunters? They represent the future of bowhunting, but they are inherently not “joiners” of any organization that is not virtual. They don’t subscribe to magazines, they don’t pay dues, and with rare exceptions, they don’t volunteer. If they do spend money, they need to recognize instant value. When the “Boomer Bubble” finally drops out of hunting over the next 15 years, the total number of hunters overall is projected to decrease by 25-30%. Bowhunting trends parallel this. P&Y member demographics mirror this as well. To attract new members the club needs to show value besides simply putting someone’s name in a record book next to an animal. That is a goal for many, but once the novelty wears off, there’s no reason to continue paying dues. It’s why we see people leave the club after two years. There’s no “there” there.
Millennials are “connected”. Constantly connected. Where is the P&Y app that gives them links to current weather and wind where they are, allows them to interact live during their hunt, gives them articles from past Ethics to read on stand, allows them to post live hunts that are promoted on the website main page? The current leadership has made an effort to become more engaged through FB, Twitter and Instagram, but that’s not enough. The club following on those vehicles is just too small to hold much interest, when they can instantly interact with tens of thousands of bowhunters through other apps like the Bowsite mobile app. They can ask a question while on stand and instantly get answers from some of the best bowhunters in the world. And it doesn’t cost $35 a year. This is the teaser for the youth site: “There are tons of reasons why you should team up with Pope and Young Club - including to advance your bowhunting skills and interact with other youth bowhunters like yourself from all over North America. “ They can already do that for free now, on a multitude of forums.
Pope and Young Club has wallowed in the past while modern venues like the Bowsite become the resources for bowhunters. There are roughly 23,000 different individuals on the Bowsite every single day, with three million registered users. Almost every bowhunter I know checks in on the Bowsite nearly every day. How many people visit the P&Y website each day? Maybe 23?
How would anyone besides members know anything about the conservation efforts and contributions of the club? They have to hunt for it. It needs to be proactively pushed to them. Even so, supporting conservations organizations is way down the list of priorities for millennials. They would pay $35 to get 5,000 “likes” on a social media site, but not to help promote “Archery In The Schools” or WSF.
Honestly, when I joined the first time I just wanted to have an animal listed in the “book”, which sort of meant something to me back then. Then I dropped out after a couple years. I saw no reason to continue paying dues until I killed another qualifying animal. Now I may or may not enter a qualifying animal, depending upon whether I want to go through the hassle of finding and pinning-down a measurer.
Last week I attended the International Sportsman’s Expo in Denver. Huge event full of hunters, current and prospective bowhunters. The Colorado Bowhunters Association had a big booth, with bows and instruction offered. There was a giant indoor archery range right in the middle with pop-up 3-D competitions going on all four days. Big crowds watched and tried bows, many for the first time. Where was the Pope and Young Club booth to recruit and spread the message?
The Pope and Young Club is trying to cling 1960’s style image in 2018. That won’t work. I’ve been to a number of conventions and it’s like a geriatric social. Silverbacks and Gray-hairs hobbling around who all seem to know each other. You said you want to make it into more like a “club”. The perception among millennials is exactly that – a “Good Old Boy’s Club”. Most non-members perceive the Pope and Young Club is made up of a bunch of old rich “Good Old Boys” who are closed-minded, against technology, and only care about one-upping each other with bigger animals that they “buy” on expensive guided hunts. I attend the conventions for several reasons – to reconnect with friends I’ve met through social media, to see the trophy displays, and for the Bowsite social. many folks I talk to believe the club is all about promoting "horn porn", which they see as a negative in hunting.
Millennials can kill an animal and pay $35 to have it listed in small print in a book that comes out every few years, that nobody reads. Or they can post it on Bowsite and Facebook and Instagram and within a few hours it will be seen by tens of thousands of peers, maybe by hundreds of thousands if it takes off and is shared. That costs nothing and gives them instant gratification, with some short-term notoriety. They can have real-time discussions with other hunters about the animal and the hunt. What does the Pope and Young Club offer that can compete with this? Not much. Only a name in a book along with thousands of other small-print names. And a certificate. Yes, of course the club supports many worthwhile conservation and bowhunting causes. But how would anyone know this outside the club? Again, what value does that $35 a year bring (in my case, $150) vs. sending $35 directly to RMEF, for instance?
Your proposed focus on getting the records program organized and insignificant goals like getting the Ethic out on time will do nothing to increase the membership or address retention. It’s like putting new drive belts on the Buggy Whip machine while race cars are zooming past the buggy whip factory. A real world understanding of today’s bowhunters seems to be missing from the club, overall. You mention that you don’t hear much about the club. You must not be engaged beyond Chatfield. Do a Bowsite search on Pope and Young Club or P&Y and you’ll find all sorts of discussions about it, and will hopefully learn why people don’t see any value in entering animals or belonging to the club. It is discussed all the time on social media, bowhunting forums, online discussion groups. I hear about the club a lot – usually in negative context. When I try to educate people one-on-one, or in my banquet talks and seminars, I get glazed looks and people start looking at their phones. Most think it only exists to keep records, and most will never kill an animal that qualifies.
Speaking of the real world, I’ve been to Chatfield, the HQ and the museum twice. One day you were kind enough to give me a personal tour, and I appreciated it. It is a wonderful testament to bowhunting, but on both of my visits there it was empty. So why was it relocated to a remote farm town like Chatfield, where absolutely nobody ever goes? (I do know why, and I’ll leave it at that....). The museum needs to be located close to a big destination place – like, say, adjacent to Bass Pro in Springfield MO, or Cabelas in Denver, or a Scheels, or anywhere where people can see it, enjoy it, learn from it, and appreciate the heritage of our pursuit. Having it located in Chatfield is a terrific waste of money and a waste of a precious resource.
The Pope and Young Club is, unfortunately, a dusty old relic trying to cling to the 1960s, while bowhunters are charging ahead into the 21st century. It’s the cracked old leather back quiver hanging on the wall in the corner of the shiny modern bow shop. This makes me very sad. The current leadership has tried very hard to move it forward, to the chagrin of many old donkeys who resent change. I predict that within 15 years the club will see a greater than 50% decrease in membership unless the club recruits innovative young leaders, adopts communication and engagement technology, and hires people with a track record of success in connecting with millennials to proactively market the value. I respect the hell out of you for all you’ve done for bowhunting, but it is clear from your letter that you don’t seem understand bowhunters today and their interests and priorities, don’t understand the trends of social media and how it has overtaken messaging, don’t understand what is happening with the club, want to “save” it but don’t have a clear idea about how to do that.
I would run for a Board position except that I’m already on three Boards now. I personally think you’re a great man and a great contributor to bowhunting and the club, and I hope you’ll get involved again as a Director or with the museum. But unfortunately I can’t support you as president based upon your position letter.
I live only a few hours from Chatfield and have been there a few times to the museum and have often wondered why it is where it is. It is a great resource to the club, if only we could get that resource in front of more people.
The second comment concerns the code of conduct for any candidate running for a P&Y Board position. Randy made the comment "The section on running for office tells me the coup has already taken place." Hamer's Ma (Karla Hamersma) wrote "...the new bylaws dictates the only way the Regular/Senior candidates are allowed to contact the membership during the election is by USPS mailing, and only one time, or by individual phone calls. They are not allowed to send mass emails."
P&Y members know the previous two elections, and especially the previous one, were not something to be proud of. The Board heard it from both sides saying enough is enough. Trying to return civility to the election was the reason behind the creation of an Ethics Comittee and to create rules of conduct during an election.
As for the Museum being in Chatfield. Yes, there is current discussion about it moving. Any dialogue along these lines is very personal for Hamer's Ma and a few other people. Those that put the time and effort into building what is now on display are to be commended as it's top notch. No one can dispute that. But as for visitor numbers, they are very small. Chatfield's population is around 3000. Roughly 20 miles away is Rochester (pop. 114,000), which is home to the Mayo Clinic. Compare that to Springfield, MO, (pop 167,000) and home of Bass Pro. Johnny Morris' Wonders of Wildlife was just voted the #1 new attraction in America. Throw in the Fred Bear Museum, B&C's Heads and Horns collection, Archery Hall of Fame and the NRA exhibit that are also at BP. Every year over 1 million people visit BP and the associated museums there. Granted, each museum doesn't get all the visitors but even if a miniscule 5% visit, that's 50,000 people exposed to P&Y's history of bowhunting, conservation ethic and Fair Chase. It's a no-brainer to consider moving the museum. It's a win-win for both the Club's message and financial coffers.
EDIT: Now the offer is for four because I'm signing up a young fella, avid bowhunter, who thought the club was only for record animals and he only dreams of achieving that.
Anyway, I've continued to be a member of P&Y (now a Senior member....old), but agree we need to continue to shorten the time it takes to be a voting member. 15 years was too long, 10 years is too long to kick around as an associate.....even 5 years is quite a while if we want to grow the club and get new blood engaged. I didn't know any more about bowhunting and the club after 15 years than I did after 5, and had a lot less time and interest in participating due to career obligations. The original club members in the 1960s and maybe the 1970s were able to move up to leadership roles very quickly, but that changed in the 80s and 90s. Some positive changes have been made in that regard but overall it holds the club back to keep the majority of the members without a vote.
I agree the museum should be moved to a location with exposure to a lot of traffic.
Good luck to Jim Willems and any candidates that are interested in moving the club forward in the upcoming election. I haven't seen all the resumes since they come by snail mail and the Canadian border really ensures P&Y mail often arrives post election, especially voting for advancing member to Regular and Sr status. We need to modernize and ship everything via email, including all the voting.
Kurt, 32 year P&Y member
Then again, the Bowsite is 1000x more valuable than the P&Y website, so maybe better off coming here......
Kurt, I would have voted with you in SL if I could have... Was shut out as an Associate Member and had to hang with Uncle Ted... Finally made regular member after that Convention. Seems like a lifetime ago when you, Rock and I went to that Convention in Omaha.
I also just want to say that I don't have any problem with the discussion of the museum. I have a problem with my hometown being called a spithole backwater village and Nowhere, America.
Lou, I'm sorry you found my post to be unethical. I did not think it was in any way.
Thank you, Karla
FYI, it is considered bad form to publish private correspondences on public forums without permission from both parties, especially by a third party. I didn't mention Glenn anywhere on this thread, only that I was disturbed by "one candidate's" perceived detachment from reality. I would have preferred it stayed that way since the huge majority of P&Y members have no idea who is even running for president. And I have a huge amount of respect for Glenn. But now it's out there...
Darrall , I had the honor and pleasure of hunting with your father in Kansas his last year . We had discussions about relocating the museum and as I recall he was in favor of it. Good luck to Jim , Jack , Ricky , Jack and Merritt
I have been a member of the club for just a couple years now and I'm 31. I joined because I loved what the club stood for and always thought of it as an elite organization in a good way. I think the club's message is great and would attract a lot if younger members but I think their "brand" sucks (if that makes any sense)! With the ease of messaging and content creation via social media these days there is really no excuse for how little presence the club has. It's boggled my mind ever since I joined and started paying attention.
You wrote "I have to wonder how many members actually read the new bylaws when they came up for a vote. I've never seen anything as unAmerican in my life!" In your second post regarding how many read them you said "...I don't think many...". Then you ended your post by saying the new rules that state having a member first be approved to run and then having what they write be approved "...sounds like something you would see from Russia!
I can't say how many read it word for word. It was given to them along with an explanation of the changes. If they didn't read it, who's fault is that? Personally, as one of a couple of Board members who helped proofread all the revisions, and there were more than enough, I was seeing double and then some. We offered a couple of suggestions but the main work was done by the by-laws committee.
That committee was selected at the April 2017 Board meeting. Jim (Pres) was on it and two people from both "camps" were also selected to ensure an unbiased look at them. The "other camp" consisted of a long-time Senior member who, along with his wife, was in attendence at the meeting, the other person was a sitting Board member. The two people from that "camp" contributed absolutely nothing. One never even had the courtesy to reply to emails from Jim asking for his input. He was replaced by another Senior member who was a significant contributor. The other person's only contribution was the reply "I'll look at it when it's done." Some of that is in the Board minutes you, and any Regular/Senior member, can find posted on the website.
The "having to be approved to run" came from some that didn't like what occurred with one member several decades ago, so this approval process came from them. As for approval of what a candidate writes, that is to ensure everything is factual, not taken out of context, and doesn't defame/slam another candidate. That was brought on by what took place in the last election.
I think that most people can realize that P&Y has its place in the world .
I bet you would agree the beer is good there. Trust me.
I go to the P&Y and B&C website every Monday to look at the “photo of the week” page to look at the fine animals and see if any of my friends are highlighted. There are three new photos on B&C’s website EVERY week...it does not matter if it is Christmas Day. The P&Y single photo is rarely updated. Look here is the only one for the entire year and it Is February tomorrow:
I’m going to be 50 this year so I’m not even close to a millennial. The ONLY thing on the P&Y website that is “current” is hardly ever updated. There is no other reason to go there :-(
Ironic that my hardcore bow hunting partner sends me up dated pics from the B&C Trophy Watch Page.
As many of you probably know the past 4 years have been challenging with unexpected obstacles resulting in Board Members having to do more than serving in an advisory capacity. The time demands have been significant, and I'm thankful for my fellow Board members that were able to give more time than I could afford.
This thread has certainly highlighted a number of opportunities, that I don't think any Board member would disagree with in concept. As an organization the biggest challenge we face are the resources to focus on the most important strategic items. We need more members to increase revenue to invest in many of these ideas listed above, and yet we need the ideas implemented to grow the membership. It is a classic chicken vs. egg scenario.
Unfortunately you don't build a forum like Bowsite without resources. You don't create significant social media presences without either resources or a dynamic personality (or cute girl) that people want to follow. A new website was built 5 years ago and cost a fortune, and even with that upgrade it doesn't have all the functionality we desire. But those are all just obstacles, the key is to find ways to overcome them. We've done a better job over the past few years managing the budget and our expenses, but even so we still have significant overhead.
As was mentioned eariler, our museum is fantastic, and the building is paid for, but the property taxes and insurance expense is significant. If we can find a home with more exposure than today and shift those fixed costs to another that would be a huge win/win for the Club, and I believe that will happen.
Someone mentioned the mailers from RMEF and such. Direct mail marketing works, but also comes with a cost. MDF used, and maybe still does, a marketing firm based in Minneapolis - MCA (Membership Corporation of America), and has grown amazingly quickly over the past 15 years. The founder of MCA was the original marketer of the North American Hunting Club - an organization he and the partner sold about 20 years ago for over $55 million dollars. Because of a Board Member relationship with MCA, we were able to bring them in for consultation which was very helpful, but also highlighted the resource constraints we face. Marketing is expensive, no matter how you do it, if you do it even remotely well.
Celebrity endorsements and great, but they also are not free. That is their business and they pitch themselves at a cost. 6 years ago we spent big money (for a Club of our size) for advertising on the Outdoor Channel. Does anyone remember? The return wasn't there, it wasn't free, and when you say yes to one path you are automatically saying no to another.
But again, all said these are just obstacles and it is up to the Club, the Board, and the members to find ways to overcome them. Everyone has their idea on how to make this happen, and there likely is more than one path to success.
I guess my point with all of this is to first thank you all for your comments and to acknowledge them and at least reply that the Board is not filled with a bunch of old stick in the mud people like is portrayed from time to time. I have great respect for all my fellow Board members and those I served with in the past. All have different strengths, but collectively the group has always been a pretty intelligent brain trust. I'm also thankful to those that are choosing to step forward and serve by running for election. The hours suck and the pay is even worse, but they all do it out of a deep rooted passion for bowhunting and the P&Y Club and for that I sincerely thank you!
At the end of the day, growth in business is hard, and the same holds true related to growth in non-profits, organizations, associations, clubs, or any other entity. So we just have to keep working hard to move forward and make good strategic decisions as to where to invest our limited time and financial resources for the greatest ROI.
Remember, we are all either part of the problem or part of the solution. By having conversations like this with ideas and suggestions and a committment to not giving up, I'm optimistic that our Club will not only survive, but thrive into the future.
Thank you all for your support of the P&Y Club, and if you are not yet a member I sincerely invite you to join the cause and become part of the solution.
So Herm, many of us who want to see the club grow, prosper, and survive beyond the next 10-15 years have offered some constructive suggestions. What are your ideas - beyond contentment with stagnation of a dusty old relic run by octogenarian officers who still use rotary dial phones? Julie excepted, since she probably understands and may even have email. However, she would represent the majority of the membership and they can't vote for bylaws, policy changes, or the most important positions.
The reason I think is 'the new club' needed The Record Book (and somewhat the museum) because those are The Pope & Young Club! It is just sad and very nauseating to see Glen St.Charle's club nurturing and growth "die" ..... but all things do die at some point in time ..... The P & Y Club did mean a lot to a lot of people and they were dedicated to its survival .... and The Club was doing just fine ..... it wasn't a 'business' for sales & profit ..... The Club was more 'than that'! ..... It was (to me anyway) something sacred ..... BUT, the young dark haired whipper-snappers squeezing their cell phones and living 'on the web' had "A Vision" ..... (I know, some may be blond and or have no hair too) .... I just never was a big fan of 'change' ..... and The 'old' P & Y Club is really gone .... I accept that, but I don't have to like it!
Then P&Y began to have financial problems. Capital was needed to keep things afloat. Commercialization was the only solution. Senior and Regular membership levels had ceilings and Associate membership flucutuation turnover wasn't generating the needed capital. P&Y were forced to changed their mindset and way of operating. The archery related industry was invited to be organizational sponsors. This influx of capital helped keep things generate needed capital. The sponsor participation program has steadily grown and has become a vital part of P&Y and all the membership. I think for the most part, the majority of membership has embraced and enjoyed the relationship between the archery industry and P&Y.
A few years later, the idea of vendor booths at conventions was conceived,introduced and has obviously been well received by the convention attendees. The required vendor space of booth requirements has grown over the last couple of conventions. The vendors and the P&Y convention attendees seem to enjoy this aspect and the vendors obviously see it as profitable for their businesses or they would not be trying to secure a booth. This has provided another source of needed income for P&Y.
Hear is the bottom line point- P&Y had to change in order to survive. I don't think these changes have ever compromised the ethics, the values or the mission of P&Y.
In order for P&Y to continue to be viable, it must change some of it's policies, by-laws and procedures in order to move forward the times. This can be done without effecting its ethics, values or mission. If P&Y doesn't change -it will become stagnant, weak, irrelevant and then die.
The only places i know that thrive on death are flower shops, funeral homes and cemeteries. They are looking forward and welcome your business.
P&Y has proven it can change in the past and it can do it again. Change can and is often times difficult- but we can do it.
If you mean pre-internet, pre-computer, pre-cell phone, pre-email, pre-compound bow and carbon arrow, pre-Rage, pre-fast flite strings, pre-AIDS, pre-Bowhunter magazine, pre-hunting videos, pre-Viagra, back when men were Real Men and the club was a few hundred members and the leaders met in a smoky room to decide policy behind closed doors, then yes those days are gone (thankfully, mostly, except for Rage, AIDS, and maybe hunting TV shows).
But maybe it means something else that us young guys in our '60s don't recognize?
Am I confused?
You don't see millennials joining the Elks club or the Moose club or the Masons, Shriners, Rotary clubs either.
P&Y clearly and admittedly has a messaging problem that some of the new leaders like Jim Willems are trying to address.
You're correct that P&Y could learn much from studying BHA's success. Honestly, as a Regular member, I can't definitively say what the P&Y club has overtly done to try to promote and grow bowhunting, besides granting $60K a year to worthy organizations, holding a rendezvous, and maintaining the museum. Perhaps so, but the profile is so low as to not be noticeable, unlike BHA, which is a great example of getting OUT THERE as the face of the cause.
It's difficult to generate enthusiasm when the large majority of members have no say, no vote, no visibility into the machinations of the organization. Friends who have dropped their memberships are like, "why bother".
These organizations are chartered for other reasons but P&Y Club is chartered for the Future of Bow Hunting and does not believe Crossbows should be in archery seasons for able bodied hunters.
If you believe this too for your kids and grandkids future opportunities please join. $40 bucks a year is the cost of a pack of broadheads.
I can’t help but think when the Crossbow/airbow guys marketing team reads a thread like this they are smiling. No P&Y and their products get approved a heck of a lot faster!
Maybe it's time to start activating the membership on the state and local level. For instance, why not annual state P&Y banquets to promote the club and to make it visible?
The club has a stance on crossbows. Fantastic. And how have they used that stance in a concerted effective manner? We haven’t. Show me any substantial influence our club has in anything except a record book. There isn’t any.
Because of my love of the club and my passion for bowhunting, it's very possible I'm hoping the P&Y club will become something it never has been, and never will be under the current structure. That's likely the root of my frustration.
I am not saying P&Y can do it all but I’ll be darned if I see any other organization even trying to protect our bow hunting seasons and heritage.
Given the cumulative experience and credentials of its members, P&Y is well positioned to provide content that would make them more relevant, imo. And, in this age of viral (first hand) content, it would be great for the club if folks were eagerly looking to P&Y for a regular podcast, etc. That would drive recruitment and the mission better than any other method I could imagine.
As it is, viewed in the grander social context, P&Y is hiding its light under a bushel basket.
Lot's of fodder here for the leadership to chew on at meetings, for sure.
Now, I understand the rationalization presented: the record requirement is meant to be aspirational and the multi-species requirement is meant to direct people to seek bowhunting adventures (that's a significant aspect of our heritage) but the multitude of folks won't engage on that level initially. And so, they are summarily lost and P&Y is relegated to boundaries defined by its own discretion.
As time passed, the battle grew fiercer and fiercer. The Mississippi Bowhunters Association continued to counter the attempt. The crossbow industry began to court the legislature and hired lobbyist companies.
As a member of the Mississippi Bowhunter Association I was involved in the inclusion of the crossbow in the archery only season. As a member of P&Y, I contacted the P&Y headquarters and cried out for supportive help to battle crossbows being included in the archery season. Since the P&Y was very vocal in being anti-crossbow and had a position statement concerning the use of crossbows, I felt sure they would surely help the Mississippi bow hunters.
The P&Y corporate office told me that P&Y did not really get involved in political issues. It was almost like my request for help had been misunderstood. Being persistent, I called BS and challenged the response I received. I finally got a letter from P&Y stating that P&Y did not support crossbows. The P&Y letter was included in Mississippi Bowhunters Association opposition package. I was thankful to get the letter, but at the same time, I question why P&Y’s was apprehensive in joining in a battle of something the P&Y stated in writing they were against. Fortunately, the crossbow inclusion in the archery season failed that legislative term.
The next legislative year the Mississippi Bowhunters Association again faced the same battle of opposing the crossbow in archery season. I called P&Y headquarters and heard the same response that P&Y does not get involved in political activities. I again call BS and reminded P&Y headquarters that P&Y had provided a position statement the year prior and we needed another statement from them. I received the requested letter without as much resistance. Unfortunately, the opposition ramped up more courting of the legislature and more lobbying efforts and was successful with their efforts. Crossbows were thereafter included unrestricted in archery season.
I have provided the above background information to make this point- talking a good game is one thing, but actually getting involved in the game is another thing. When the situation was real, P&Y did not want really to get involved and really did little to help in the situation.
I appreciate what other hunting organizations are do in keeping it’s membership informed of anti-hunting activity and anti-conservation measures. I receive organization email blasts almost weekly of challenges, victories and defeats in these measures.
I would love to see P&Y’s get serious and get involved in all bowhunting and conservation matters, legislative or otherwise that are opposed to the positions and stances that P&Y. What do anti-bow hunters organizations and/or equipment manufacturers producing equipment that is in opposition to P&Y’s position have to fear of P&Y? Would seeing evidence that P&Y is actually doing something in fighting anti-hunting and other areas that are in opposition to P&Y positions help to encourage membership retention and growth?
Maybe P&Y needs to have a venue to accept and “honor” first timers with their kill.
I don’t care who you are or what you say, people like to be recognized. People are hard wired to “display” and to me that’s a good thing. Because if it’s something we want to be acknowledged for it’s usually something that is widely accepted as “good”. Even the geek that eats vegan, watches no sports and seldom leaves the mall displays “trophyism” by standing in line for forty eight hours so he can run out of the store with the first IPhone 10 waving in his soft, little white hands.
Maybe instead of treating the Record Book like the embarrassing family member everybody cringes around, we should find its strengths and put them to work.
P&Y was the driving force behind the creation of the NABC (North American Bowhunting Coalition), and for the several years, though it also wasn't "active", it was a vehicle for all state bowhunting orgs to communicate with each other over common issues. They held a national meeting at the conclusion of the P&Y convention as many members were already present. That way, instead of having to reinvent the wheel as it were on an issue, one state could contact another on how they dealt with a topic. NY state bowhunters had a very strong anti-cross bow program that they freely shared with other states.
Unfortunately the NABC faltered and no longer is in existence.
This is why the guidance and direction of good tax lawyers and accountants come into play in setting up different incorporations under a parent umbrella.
It was cold and windy today, so I decided to take on some inside chores. One of the chores was to go through my magazine stack and throw out read and non-keepers. As I was thumbing through my Feb 2018 edition of American Hunter magazine, I discover a NRA ballot and rules for voting. The ballot is for the board of directors candidates which is the governing body for the NRA. Found the member voting requirements to be interesting:
1. Must be a NRA member five or more consecutive years
2. Must be at least 18 yrs. old or by 50 days prior to the annual meeting
3. Must be a citizen of the US
Each eligible member is entitled to can a ballot for each vacancy on the board.
I found these simple requirements to be in stark contrast to P&Y voting requirements. Wondering what are others thoughts?
Owl, I'm a P&Y member and enter my qualifying animals into the record book and I my hunting is not based off of self-aggrandizing. I kill 4-5 animals a year and usually the majority are female or 1 year olds for the freezer.
I personally was turned off by the elitist application system when I looked into it and I stopped being a member of CBA as I didn’t feel it really grasped what the membership voiced. What I’m getting at is that I’ll probably never join the P&Y, our hunting heritage has never in our history needed all hunters to work together to fight for our continued right to hunt, with threats to public land and closing of hunting (griz in BC), we have never needed a larger voice then we need now. For me P&Y does nothing to support retaining our hunting heritage and public lands, it is caught up on stick and string only and seems like a vast majority of those that actually run the group believe they are more ethical then other groups using legal means to hunt.
But the largest reason I will not join, it’s too small of an org to provide any actual difference, at 6000 members it is nothing more to me then a boys club, so my money will continue to go to organizations that support my overall desire, protecting our rights to hunt (all forms), wildlife conservation and retention of public lands for future generations to actually hunt on.
Back in the 1960’s any kid could just hunt on a neighbors property or any farmers property, today the largest hinderance to getting millennial lbs and our youth into hunting is access to land and cost of participation. Any organization that doesn’t understand this will slowly fade away with time as their older members die out.
I agree with Lou, in 15 ears there will probably not be a P&Y club but a larger organization will probably own their record books and Johnny Morris the museum pieces. Maybe it’s not too late for P&Y to recognize it’s failing Bowhunting and turn around it’s overall mission of being an inclusive group fighting for Bowhunters, access to land to hunt and stop believing that 30 year members are more important then 1st war members. Until then it’ll always be considered a good old boys club that others see zero value in and that their money is better spent else where.
Sorry for any misspelling or incoherent rants, I’m posting this from my phone as I rarely use a computer when not at work, it’s the times we live in ??
If this is how “ethical” senior or high ranking members of P&an act that well, disappointing.
Todd posted a very well thought out reply but it also seemed to lack understanding of a d sure to find a way without paying a consultant to do anything. Where are the wed developers members that can donate time to improve an out dated website? My 7 year old can create and send a mass email, why can’t this org do the same? Maybe in a desire to look down on hunting technology, like my father, they also look down on technology used in daily life, again like my parents ??
I read up a bit on it. My understanding is there is a somewhat gray area as to how much a 501c3 can lobby. It can't be a "substantial" part of its activities. On legislation, they can educate, distribute informative materials, or testify if asked by the legislative body. Basically, advocating is ok and unlimited, lobbying specifically on a piece of legislation is limited. Rule or regulation changes not tied directly to legislative process are fair game.
Ike, I have no doubt that is the case. I am going to send you a PM.
Quick story. I was walking the vendor display at the Convention in St. Louis. I don't have any plans to do any guided hunts any time soon, but was walking by one of the outfitters' booth and happened to to start up a conversation with the guy. We stood there and chatted about a number of different things; some bowhunting some not. After about 10 minutes or so another gentleman walked up. It was a guy some of you may have heard of. His name... Chuck Adams.
Did I feel a little out place standing there. Actually I did, but it wasn't because of anything Chuck did. I wouldn't say that I was star struck or anything, because I don't feel like I'm that type of person, but I just remember thinking to myself "That is Chuck Adams right there and this is pretty darn cool." He sure as hell didn't tell me to go take a hike or anything.
I swear sometimes people are just looking for a reason to be offended.
..............or a reason to offend someone
I am not a member but have visited them in Chatfield and made direct financial contributions to their kitty. I have followed the posts closely, looking for a reason to join. I do not like complexity, with one check I and two of my children became life members of the NRA.
Many of the guys posting here know my user name from other forums. I just wanted to post my thought as a nonmember, but I can tell the old guard of P&Y such as you could careless about seeing the org succeed.
I agree with you- you can't win by quitting or never joining. A log is not split on first chop.
On my two terms as 2nd VP on the Pope and Young I had many goals , one was to pass the lighted knock issue . Why you ask , good question . There is a lady in my town with an archery shop that would not join CBA because we did not support lighted knock at that time. I knew if P/Y changed it's view so would the CBA, the rest is history.
The second task was to change the time to become a regular member from 14 years to 10. I petitioned for 5 years and had to compromise at 10. The P/Y board sometimes moves slow but you need to know that everyone of the board members are very dedicated and truly believe in the club. It is a lot of time and commitment being on the board and I encourage anyone that wishes to make changes to get off their soapbox and run for office. Someone made the comment that the board was old traditional shooters .My time on the board it was 50/50 traditional vs compound and we had some great young minds on the team . By the way,the club is 90% compound shooters and it does not matter, we are brothers n arms and we better learn to stick together. Proud Member of Pope and Young John Gardner
Maybe this was already cleared up and I just missed it. How is it that BHA, RMEF, WSF, SCI etc all have the ability to fight for their causes and P&Y doesn’t?
I would have loved to see P&Y stand up to the KS crossbow initiative, which to me was just a change in legal weapons not politics. I enjoy shooting trad and compound but just because I do that I don’t see why support an org that also likes it and only sets guidelines on manner of take for a record book yet doesn’t directly do anything to keep Bowhunting alive and well in any legal aspect.
It is up to us.
The club could use the passion on this forum to make it better for all of us.
How many hunting celebrities routinely post the number of P&Y animals they have killed in their ads? That honors the individual hunter, not the individual animals. Myles Keller was a master at it.
You couldn't be more wrong about that one sir. I support the club and always will. I shoot at least 1 if not a handful of critters that would make PnY minimums every season and I've never entered anything. I'm not a huge fan of the records keeping side of things but I am a huge fan of bowhunting.
Yeah, I'm absolutely calling bunk on that one too! Killed my first P&Y whitetail in 1991, entered it in the book...but did not actually join the P&Y Club until more than a decade later. Been a member ever since. Today, I regret not joining earlier in life....but having an animal in the record book had zero influence on my decision to join the Club.
I wanted to kick him.
In any event, I do understand the money the record book brings in helps other causes.
To each his own when it comes to record books.
Everybody committed and passionate about any activity, be it hunting, football or chess, keeps scores and measures success by numbers. As a person becomes better at an activity that they are passionate about, they start measuring their proficiency against those that are "farther along". Milestones are important points in our lives that we look back at for inspiration for the future. Many people who accomplish (relatively) great things were inspired by others that have gone before them and left a legacy of achievement.
But the plain truth is, everything in life is measured!! From bank rolls to bass.
It really would be nice to know what the org does for today’s archers. If the record book disappeared tomorrow how many current members would remain?
SBH I hope you honor Eric and remain a member and don’t just take a free one year membership.
If any of you spent 10 minutes at the Bowsite “Meet & Greet” at the bi-annual P&Y Convention your position would likely change. Join us in Omaha in April 2019.
Reality though is there are very few paid positions within the organization. Rick Mowery has his hands in many facets of day to day operation and promotion of the club through Social Media, etc, but one guy trying to do multiple jobs gets spread too thin. And regardless of how dedicated you are to something if it is on a volunteer basis there is only so much time in the day.
This thread has been mostly positive imo and has had some great discussion. I have been involved with the membership committee for several years and honestly can't give a great answer to some of the concerns/questions that have been brought forth. For me I support P&Y because bowhunting is what I love, it is what I live for, and the people that I have met simply because I have attended and participated in P&Y conventions is invaluable to me so I will continue to support them even when I don't agree with everything. I am sure I am not the only one that appreciates the passion that has ensured on this thread regardless of if you are Pro P&Y or think the ship has sunk, so thank you to everyone that has taken time to comment.
Our public lands are under assault and the president of P&Y comes to this forum and spews nonsense like this. In my opinion, a statement like this is a symptom that partially explains as to why P&Y finds itself ailing today. BHA is at the forefront of the fight to defend our public lands. As a result BHA has doubled its membership in the past year. Moreover, BHA attracts young members. Here in Montana, for example, BHA has student chapters at both state universities. By contrast the average P&Y member is much older and its membership rolls remain stagnant. P&Y certainly put out a statement claiming to defend our public lands. But that so far has been the extent of the organization's involvement with the issue. Could P&Y do more on this and other issues even with it's limited resources? Absolutely! For one, it could mobilize it's membership on any number of issues. This is something in which BHA excells and P&Y would certainly do well to learn from them. But for whatever reason P&Y instead chooses to issue nice sounding statements and then sit on it's hands and do nothing.
I have been a P&Y associate / general member since 2006. But that will end later this year when my membership comes up for renewal. I simply see no useful purpose in remaining in an organization that does virtually nothing to address the critical issues of our day while at the same time raising doubts about those who are on the front lines engaged in those issues. The post by the P&Y president has been a moment of clarity of clarity for me, and for that I am grateful. I will now make a $40 donation to BHA that would have otherwise been used for my P&Y membership renewal.
As far as Jim's statement about BHA, let's take a step back. Our Colorado Parks and Wildlife folks cite accessibility to animals by aging hunters as one big contributor to attrition of older hunters. BHA promotes more roadless areas, which is great when you're 28 years old, but not so much when you're 63 with joints that have trekked thousands of mountain miles carrying a pack since you were that idealistic young pup. I know - I was like that too at 28.
So yes, roadless is critical, preservation in the face of transfer threats is critical, but BHA doesn't have bowhunting on the radar screen except to recruit bowhunters into the fold (although there are many bowhunters who are members, including Ivan James, just as there are many backpackers who are P&Y members). P&Y and BHA are not an either-or choice. Important, but different goals.
When it's all said and done, BHA might be the best thing to ever happen. Aside from my personal reservations I can say that there have been conversations to do something jointly between BHA and P&Y. We have plenty in common.
Public access is a huge concern to all of us. I don't discount that for a minute but I didn't like the way BHA aligned themselves with every other anti hunting entity with the recent monument decisions. Every bowhunter I know from Utah was against the National Monument designations in their state and how it effects hunting. They claimed it decreased access and decreased opportunities and had the potential of cutting us out of the picture in some areas. That's why the preservation comment.
BHA thinks changing the designation of these lands from monument back to BLM was a disaster. Right now I see some of BHA's policies more aligned with Sierra Club than with bowhunters. This is what I see today and has nothing to do with P&Y. I'm not opposed to BHA but I don't agree with everything they do.
You can make your own decision on which organizations you join but I'm fairly certain BHA won't do anything to keep crossbows out of our western bow seasons. Mark my word, that will happen if we don't do what we can to stop it. P&Y used to be very effective at doing this but because of our own internal problems and complacency in all of us, we are losing ground. It's time to take back the conversation and whether you agree or not, P&Y is ready to lead that effort. Stay tuned.
BHA is a great org, I’m a life member.
No org will align 100% with our views but BHA has the larger picture of hunter interests in mind. Where will all the P&Y members hunt without public land? How will P&Y grow without public land? Not everyone that is concerned with preserving public land hunts but hunters always lead the charge in conservation and public land retention.
You made it clear you disagree with BHA on the monuments issue and side with those in Utah who supported rescinding monument status for public lands in that state. I'm sorry, but your stance it shortsighted and posses a threat to our public lands. If this is allowed to stand what's to stop this president or any future president from rescinding the status of monuments going all the way back to Theodore Roosevelt? This sets a dangerous precedent which you seem to favor. Moreover, the politicians in Utah are the leading actors in scheme to privatize our public lands and are aligned with the anti-public lands organization, the American Lands Council. Recently the president of the ALC, Montana State Senator Jennifer Fielder, appeared at an anti-public lands rally here in Montana with Cliven and Ryan Bundy. She treated the Bundy's as heroes, stating that they should be pardoned. (BTW, instead of sitting on their hands and doing nothing, BHA members attended that rally to peacefully confront the Bundy's and call them on their b.s.) So you can make all the denials you want but you are in fact siding with those very politicians in Utah who back the American Lands Council's stance on Monuments and are sympathetic to the Bundy's. So, no, I will not take a chill pill while you spread false narratives about BHA and slander them. In my book to make the claim, without providing a shred of evidence, that some members of BHA are "closet anti-hunters" does indeed fit under my definition of slander.
Finally, last week I drove 125 miles to buy a ticket to a bowhunters banquet where you are scheduled to speak. Now, reading what you have written in this thread, I wouldn't think of attending that event. Moreover, I have cancelled my plans to attend the June P&Y rendezvous in Wisconsin which was also to include a visit to the P&Y museum in Chatfield, Minnesota. As I stated in my previous post, given your stance I no longer wish to be in any manner associated with the P&Y Club.
I am a life member of Pope and Young and a regular member of BHA.
I am sorry to hear your comments toward an organization and a person that I hold in the highest of regard.
Many Pope and Young members (including Jim) hunt public lands primarily/regularly and absolutely do not agree with loss of those public lands to private or State control. Pope and Young is an organization focused on preserving bow hunting and not public lands. Two very different concepts.
We also do not agree with unnecessary designation of already public lands (BLM, USFS, etc.) as National Monuments where hunting and access can be revoked very easily. Designation of areas as National Monuments closes down historical access and does not allow for any activities that were formerly revenue generating mechanisms (grazing, logging, mining, petroleum production, etc). There is no state or federal tax base for those activities for those lands after designation.
State and Federal taxpayers have to foot the bills for holding these lands designated as National Monuments.
Not a good deal in the long run and, with less potential for revenue generation over time to the DOI and USFS, it will drive decisions in the future to sell or turn over public lands to private or state entities.
I was unaware until recently that National Monument designation did not automatically preclude hunting as all of the National Monuments that I am familiar with in Colorado don't allow it. Interestingly, there are private inholdings in several that I know of that continue to allow hunting and it is very good, but you will pay for it!
There were a number of National Monument designations that were made by the previous administration that definitely were over the top with the amount of land that they included.
I applaud Mr. Zinke's decision to reduce and remove National Monument designation and return those lands to multi-use BLM and USFS activities. Doing this will make it more difficult to sell off or transfer these public lands in the future so that we and future generations will be allowed to hunt and fish there as we have in the past.
BHA's stance on the National Monument issue was very irrational and did not look at the big picture. It also seemed to assume that hunting, fishing, and public access was enhanced in some way by the designation of lands as National Monuments. I actually questioned a number of people in upper levels of the organization about their stance and did not get a good answer as to why they were taking this position when it had the potential to reduce public lands for hunting and angling.
I had been considering a life membership to BHA and had been fairly active in the organization but will need to reconsider after this.
I will say that you are missing a golden opportunity to speak with Jim about the issues that trouble you about Pope and Young by not meeting with him face to face at that banquet.
I look at National Monuments about like National Parks from a hunter’s perspective...based on my years in Colorado.
.I get the sense that groups like Sierra Club would just as soon see all federal public land placed under Monument-like status where they are protected from all uses except theirs - backpacking - of course.
Muleybum, just as you can disagree with the private opinion of Jim, at least he has the nuts to express it. I'll guarantee you'll find some in leadership roles in BHA who are against hunting. They co-opt hunters into the cause, just as Sierra Club tried to do some years ago by adopting a softer stance toward hunting. They don't openly admit it of course, but I know hard core fishermen (all catch-release) who are anti-hunting and are pissed that they have to share "their" backcountry with hunters in the fall.
Logical thought process....
One thing I do believe is that advocating closing off public lands to hunting is not "pro-hunting"...
The reason I weighed in to begin with is I don't think organizations like RMEF, Wild Sheep and BHA are all that concerned with ensuring the future of bowhunting. Hunting, sure but specifically bowhunting, no. They all do good things but bowhunters need to unite. We've lost our way and we've given up our power. It's time to take that back.
Here's what I believe: BHA leadership tends to be left-leaning, politically, as evidenced by some individual leaders' political efforts. That, in itself is not necessarily a bad thing for public lands considering where some right-leaning politicians are with respect to public land transfers. But public lands are not the only issues facing our country. On important issues like immigration, taxes, energy self-reliance, Second Amendment, growth of government control over our daily lives, left-leaning beliefs deeply conflict with my own. I'm not a "single issue" guy.
BHA has accepted large amounts of funding from organizations that are inherently anti-hunting, which does raise some red flags. BHA tries to spin it but it's on the tax returns.
I agree with their position on keeping public lands public. I also agree that not all public land is suitable for timber harvest and energy development, but at the same time we don't need to close off EVERYTHING to those uses if they are appropriate and managed carefully. Same goes for roadless areas. They are critical for many obvious reasons. But with the average age of hunters now over 50 and growing older by about one year every two years, many hunters are dropping out of big game hunting because access to their hunting areas is now behind locked gates. In my NF they are closing off access roads left and right. Great for those still able to access them on foot or however, not so much for the old guys who've had hunting camps back in there all their lives. Is this a bad thing? Depends on who you talk to. Some closure advocates come off with a "Let them eat cake" attitude.
I also believe that the idea that BHA and P&Y are an either-or proposition is asinine. One promotes bowhunting and preserving the heritage, while the other is all about public lands. Bowhunters are all about public land conservation, but not all "preservationists" are in favor of bowhunting. But we can belong to both organizations at the same time without agreeing with each and every position of each and every leader. These are not religious issues (though some bowhunters and backcountry advocates try to make it seem so).
On this I am in full agreement with JSW. But preserving the future of bowhunting is not the mission of RMEF, BHA, WSF, BCC, or any number of hunting and conservation organizations. This should be the mission of P&Y. That's the sole reason why I had been a member these past dozen years. We need a NATIONAL organization that stands for bowhunting and bowhunters. But what we do not need is the president of a national organization that intends to speak for bowhunters to publicly bash a pro-hunting and pro-conservation group like BHA. We are all entitled to our personal views, including JSW. But it also must be remembered that when the president of an organization speaks it is a reflection on the organization which he/she represents.
Really? JSW has every right to express his opinions separately from his position with P&Y. Unless he states it’s “ P&Y ‘s position “ ..... I cant see why he shouldn’t be allowed to express his personal views and be able to separate himself from the organization he represents.
You’re right ... he is entitled to his personal view... but he should also be entitled to his personal views without being handcuffed to the presidency of P&Y.
It’s not fun being a president, it’s a lot of hard work and sacrifice. What I like about our P&Y president is that when others disagree with him , he doesn’t resort to personal attack . Sometimes..... when a president of an organization DOESNT speak it is a reflection of the organization which he/ she represents.
Finally a healthy discussion that can benefit everyone here on Bowsite. There’s a reason this thread will approach 300 posts..... because it’s an important discussion
If you are out there reading this post and you care about the future of the sport you love...... you have the opportunity to have your voice heard by the president of P&Y. Speak up ...... Bowsite , once again , has given us a unique opportunity.
I understand why "general" members feel left out in the cold. I felt that way too, which is why I applied for regular membership. I wanted to at least have a small voice. Anyone who read Jim Willems' letter to voting members and his position paper would understand where his intentions lie. And I believe they are pointed in the right direction. So if any changes can be considered in the future without changing the basic membership/voting structure, that's one place where I believe it would help very much. Transparency is key in any organization.
I am 100% in agreement with you. I have no idea who is running other offices other than 2nd Vice President which is the only position I can vote for as a Life General/General member.
Well, not quite true. The real anti’s get good return on no effort.
Like I said, there have been discussions about P&Y and BHA doing some sort of joint event. We do have common goals and we will likely work together in the future. I think your outrage is out of place.
P&Y just did a joint event with SCI. I think SCI's stance on so called "estate hunting" is a disgrace and needs to stop. I'm very vocal about that and I bring it up every time I talk to them. SCI still does a lot of good and I'm not going to quit them because I disagree with one issue even one as big as that.
We're not getting anywhere with this so feel free to have the final word. I'm tired of wrestling in the mud.
Based on information from several sources regarding funding sources of BHA, ties of BHA leadership to organizations that are anti-hunting, as well as the recent stance by BHA on National Monuments that does not enhance access for hunting and fishing perhaps there is something to Jim's remarks. It is not slander. Jim was simply pointing out claims that have been made by others questioning the funding and leadership of BHA.
Is there a rebuttal to those claims or any clarification by BHA?
Those issues have certainly caused me to pause and reflect on what BHA's real goals are, what direction they are going, and whether I want to continue to support them.
Unfortunately, you have stated that you will not speak with Jim face to face and that you are cancelling your membership in the Pope and Young Club over his one remark based on claims that appear very truthful about BHA. Honestly, that is very rash behavior.
I am certain that Jim would be very attentive to your concerns and would address them in a positive way.
Would it not be preferable to sit down and rationally discuss your issues with Jim and the Club?
It's the right of anyone who is even CONSIDERING joining an org to research and determine who and what that org really is. OR has become.
Have to say personally..... if anyone in the higher ups (including financial support) have any connections with anti-hunting..... I'm not only not joining.... I will actively oppose them. I don't support wolves in sheeps clothing.... so to speak.....
Mr Smith has stated several times he is "leaving P&Y"...... well, sorry to hear that. But not once have you addressed the concerns here about the org you are leaving them over. You seem comfortable with some "diversity" in the org you are so passionate about. Yet inflexible toward anyone who would question you or the org you seem so passionate about. Have to say to me that raises more questions as to why than it lays to rest. Not helping your cause much at all if this is the attitude of the membership.
That said, there were other things that were said that I find objectionable, including the remark that BHA is "obviously more preservationist than conservationist." I take strong exception to JSW's views on this and other issues. Since as a general member I am not permitted to vote for the position of president, I have no other avenue open to me to raise my strong objections to JSM's views but to resign my membership. I therefore stand by my position that I do not want to be in any manner associated with the Pope and Young Club.
Entirely your call, but heard you the FIRST time...and the SECOND....now a THIRD. Get a grip man. You put yourself in quicksand here. JSW extended the olive branch more than once , but you just keeping flailing about while sinking deeper and deeper.
Personally... I just want to be around like minded individuals/bowhunters. That, in a nutshell, is why I'm a member of the P&Y club. Is that the simpleton reasoning? Oh well. The P&Y club is not perfect and never will be. Unless this club just goes left of center and does things that are totally against some of my personal beliefs/ethics, I'll always be a member and support as much as I can. To me, thats supporting my brothers and sisters that have that same passion. Have a great week everyone!
Since I was a little boy I’ve enjoyed shooting my bows and latter bow hunting. The bow and arrow has given me infinite enjoyment. I’d like to pass that opportunity on to the next wave of youngsters in coming generations!
Best way I know how to preserve that opportunity for those behind me is to invest in and support Pope & Young. I see P&Y shortcomings..... but show me a better alternative !
I was considering joining BHA until this thread. Now I have little interested in joining an organization that acts as the conservation auxiliary of the Socialist Workers Party. (There, I did it again. Let's see if you pick up on it..)
Something must be wrong with the forum. I opened the P&Y Members thread and think I was just directed to the Community Forum.
Good grief. It's going to be a long time until September.
Carry on gentlemen.
Fine if you want to not like them cause they align with the left on public lands. Fine if you don't like them because you believe we should be opening up access to motorized vehicles and development on our public lands. But anyone harboring the notion that the BHA leadership is anti-hunting clearly hasn't met folks like Land Tawney, Ty Stubblefield, Ryan Callaghan, or Ryan Busse and I'm guessing they haven't spent any time with any of the staff or board members. These guys are as passionate an outdoors-people as they come, and the thought that they are somehow secretly pursuing an anti-hunting agenda is laughable.
The left is "ensuring" North America's hunting heritage? Guess "ensuring" is different than "supporting". But words mean things. If you look at all the dozens and dozens of orgs that are anti-hunting, anti-2nd amendment, etc. they are ALL leftist oriented. A good deal of the left are actively ANTI-HUNTING. Offhand I see NO anti-hunting conservative orgs. None. If there were such orgs they would certainly be an anomaly. But yeah..... the left as a rule is a stanch ally of hunters and hunting rights.... good grief....
You'd have to have had a gallon of koolaid not to be at least suspicious of a liberal/leftist claims of supporting hunting in and of itself. They may have the same short term goals and align themselves towards that. Beware of wolves in sheep's clothing. Changing the management of an area to restrict it can also be the camel's nose under the tent. Hunters will get tossed under the bus and not even know it has happened until it has.
And I don't believe folks are supporting opening up roads as was stated and improve access where there is none now. I believe there are those who support KEEPING the access they CURRENTLY have. Opening access is very different than blocking current access. There is some word play going on as well as some misleading of how Obama put the "monument status" on vast swaths of land locking out access as well as any local non-bureaucratic control over use as required prior. They can and have eliminated hunting on monument land with the wave of a hand. It's the first step to creating national park land. How many national parks can you hunt in?
A good many folks involved would give up hunting access in favor of expanding national parks. That is a far cry from supporting hunting. P&Y supports hunting. Period.
WRT the support and funding..... well I guess politics make strange bedfellows.... the enemy of my enemy is my friend kind of thing...... but leftist orgs created to support hunting???? Sure... maybe lobby for some unicorn tags too.....
I'm old enough to remember similar words coming from the beginnings of the Sierra Club. Many clubs start out as one thing and morph into something else. Everything changes, inevitable..... but to what aim.... and what direction. Thus back in a round about way to what changes should and shouldn't take place withing P&Y?
They are a conservation group made up of hunters and anglers whose primary mission is to advocate for public lands and waters. If the Republican Party didn’t have a platform plank explicitly speaking to transferring of federal lands and they weren’t actively trying to do so, I’m sure you’d see BHA align with them on more occasions. It just so happens that the Dems are the party of most ardently advocating for retaining federal lands. When it comes to other aspects of our hunting heritage, they obviously are not. As sportsmen, we are often put in a difficult spot - support one party and we won’t have guns to hunt with, support the other side we won’t have lands to hunt on.
Every monument decision needs to be looked at on its own. Yes, there are monuments that restrict hunting. That was not the case in the GS-E. The move was one entirely made with the aim of opening up access and removing protections against development.
I do wonder how many active hunters also utilize National Parks for their families other recreation such as camping, sight seeing, fishing, hiking, skiing etc. I do not think most hunters are necessarily against National Parks, or their expansion. They just do not want them in their area.
As far as the P&Y Club, they have work to do.