Are we loving the land to death?
This question comes up time and time again with folks I talk to on and off the podcast, and many professionals in the outdoor industry wonder the same thing.
In episode 21 of the Outdoor Minimalist Podcast, we are going to explore this topic through the lens of conservation and political engagement.
To help guide me through this discussion, I’m excited to introduce Tom Sadler.
Tom Sadler is the deputy director of the Marine Fish Conservation Network. He is also the national capital correspondent for Mountain Journal. Sadler has an extensive history of promoting conservation through advocacy and communication.
Sadler is an award-winning journalist with awards from the Outdoor Writers Association of America and the Virginia Outdoor Writers Association. He has served on the boards of numerous fly-fishing, conservation and journalism organizations. Sadler spent 14 years as a public affairs officer in the United States Navy Reserve. He received a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of New Hampshire. A lifelong fly fisherman who, in his free time, guides and teaches for Mossy Creek Fly Fishing in Harrisonburg, Virginia. He and his wife Beth live with their family in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia.
Tom Sadler
Website: http://middlerivergroup.com/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/tom.sadler
Episode Resources
Marine Fish Conservation Network: https://conservefish.org/
Mountain Journal: https://mountainjournal.org/
Quoted: A Book-Lover's Holiday in the Open by Theodore Roosevelt
This transcript was edited to remove some filler words and phrases and is not verbatim according to what is spoken in the audio recording.
Meg: Welcome to the Outdoor Minimalist podcast, Tom! I'm excited to have you on the show. From our other conversations, I already know you have a lot to offer and teach the audience—and me too!
Before we jump into things, do you mind telling us a little bit more about how you fell in love with the outdoors and how it continues to be a part of your life?
Tom: For sure. Well, thanks, Megan. I really appreciate the opportunity to be on with you here. I’m very fortunate that I spent my first night outdoors when I was about six and a half weeks old. My parents and grandparents had a place up on Moosehead Lake in Maine. I was born in the summer, so we very quickly retreated up to Moosehead Lake. I was in a bassinet and under a canvas tent at a very young age—and it stuck.
As my mother used to say, not necessarily always tongue-in-cheek, "He was outdoors at an early age, and it's been hard to bring him in ever since." I've really enjoyed being involved in the outdoors—hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, biking, kayaking, canoeing, you name it. It’s the soul of my existence in many ways.
Meg: That’s a great introduction to the outdoors! From what I understand from talking to you previously, a lot of your career and work is also related to outdoor recreation.
Tom: For sure. I was very fortunate to have that background in the outdoors. The more time I spent outside, the more I was educated, the more I learned, and the more I cared. The more I cared, the more involved I got. First, I was a volunteer and a financial supporter, but it kind of morphed into a career. That’s how I wound up doing what I do.
(A clock chimes in the background)
Tom: Oh, one of the challenges of working from home—I have a ship’s clock in the background.
Meg: That makes sense! With that upbringing, and as you entered into a career in the outdoor industry, how did the switch from being just an avid outdoorsman to an outdoor advocate begin?
Tom: You know, it was a pretty seamless transition, I’d say. Like I mentioned, I was raised in the outdoors and had the opportunity to hunt, fish, and camp with my parents and grandparents. They instilled in me the idea of being participatory—not just taking advantage of the resources but also giving back to them.
Before I had money, I was a volunteer—doing trail cleanups and similar work. When I had some disposable income that didn’t go to the usual things young men spend money on, I started donating to organizations like Ducks Unlimited and Trout Unlimited.
As I moved through my career, I worked in Washington, D.C., on Capitol Hill as a lobbyist. At some point, I realized that as much as I loved the outdoors and as I became more accomplished as a lobbyist, I wanted to do this professionally—for and on behalf of the outdoors. It naturally evolved into a career, which wasn’t how I initially started in Washington, but it’s where I ended up.
Meg: Yeah, that's a really interesting progression, and it makes a lot of sense. From that standpoint, I think you have a unique perspective on outdoor advocacy—almost like an outsider looking in, but you're also deeply integrated into it. So how do you think outdoor advocacy, or even conservation and restoration programs, fit into the outdoor industry right now?
Tom: I’d love to think that people who enjoy the great outdoors, like I do and you do, and your listeners do, find themselves on a similar path or progression. That could be starting as a local volunteer, then giving money, and eventually becoming more involved.
I’ll color this with my experience as a conservation advocate and lobbyist. Those local efforts—volunteering and financial support—are essential. But one of the harder things, I’ve found over the years, is coaching people to become citizen lobbyists or citizen advocates. Petitioning your government is a right protected by the Constitution, and I always encourage people to learn how to get directly involved.
That might mean attending local government meetings, submitting public comments, or writing to your Congressman. It could be as simple as advocating for a trailhead or signage on a trail. Or it might involve larger-scale lobbying efforts, like working on behalf of the Great American Outdoors Act, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, or addressing the Waters of the U.S. rulings.
Meg: It’s interesting to hear you talk about that because, as individuals, it often doesn’t feel like we have much sway—especially when it comes to government policies. But with outdoor recreation growing so quickly in recent years, it makes me wonder if the way we’re recreating and approaching conservation, somewhat passively, is really sustainable.
Tom: Well, that’s the critical question, isn’t it? “Is it sustainable?” means different things to different people. In many respects, it’s a matter of perspective.
I want to tie this back to my last point about engagement. I know it can feel intimidating, and we often put an inflated value on our elected officials. But we shouldn’t. It’s important to recognize that you, as a citizen, pay their salaries. You’re the reason they’re there, and their job is to make your life better. That’s why I encourage people to participate in their government actively.
Now, regarding sustainable recreation—that’s a crucial issue. How people define and approach it can vary greatly. I’ve been lucky to have 67 years of perspective, 66 of which I’ve spent outdoors. One of the things that’s shaped my views over the years comes from Theodore Roosevelt. In his book A Book-Lover’s Holidays in the Open, there’s a passage that’s become a touchstone for me. If you’ll permit me, I’d like to share it.
Meg: Of course.
Tom: He wrote:
"Defenders of the short-sighted men who in their greed and selfishness will, if permitted, rob our country of half its charm by their reckless extermination of all useful and beautiful things, sometimes seek to champion them by saying 'the game belongs to the people.' The greatest good for the greatest number applies to the number within the womb of time, compared to which those now alive form but an insignificant fraction. Our duty to the whole, including those unborn generations, bids us restrain an unprincipled present-day minority from wasting the heritage of these unborn generations. The movement for the conservation of wildlife, and the larger movement for the conservation of all natural resources, are essentially democratic in spirit, purpose, and method."
That duty Roosevelt speaks of—that’s the core of what I was talking about. How we achieve it is the real challenge.
Meg: Right.
Tom: I think outdoor recreation can be sustainable. The question is: how do we make it sustainable?
Meg: Yeah, I haven’t read that book, but it sounds like I probably should. That quote does a nice job of summarizing what you’re saying. I’m glad you brought up participation again. If the way we’re recreating could potentially be sustainable, how can people become more involved—through a mindset shift or lifestyle change—to approach those government agencies?
Because I think, for a lot of people, even writing an email or a letter can feel really intimidating.
Tom: Yeah, and I really hope the takeaway here, Meg, is that people shouldn’t feel intimidated by that. When I first started 40 years ago, handwritten letters or typed letters on an IBM Selectric were the standard for contacting an elected official.
Now, we’ve gone to email, Twitter, Facebook—you name it. It’s become a lot easier. Smart advocacy groups like Backcountry Hunters and Anglers or Trout Unlimited make it simple to participate. If you can just click a button and send an email, it’s worth doing. If you’re willing to personalize that message, even better. If you can make a phone call, great. And if you can show up at a meeting or rally, fantastic.
Being in that participatory space is tremendously important. When it comes to mindset, I think there are four key elements: responsibility, sacrifice, balance, and perspective.
If your audience is wondering, How do I do this? How do I translate what I care about?—think about it from the perspective of the resource, the landscape, or the waterscape. When we recreate, we have an impact.
We often think of that impact in terms of how it affects us individually. But I’d argue that if we want to protect these outdoor spaces and make outdoor recreation sustainable, we need to look at it differently—from the perspective of the land, water, or resource itself.
The impact we have on those resources can wound them. And I use the word "wound" deliberately, because while wounds can heal, they leave scars. There’s always a cost. What I’ve learned—and what I hope to impart—is that we should recognize that cost and strive to find balance in our outdoor recreation.
Finding balance often requires sacrifice. If we’re going to enjoy these places in the future, we need to consider those future generations Roosevelt referred to—the “womb of time.” As a grandfather, I think about the opportunities my grandchildren will have. That shapes my core thinking about outdoor advocacy.
Going forward, as we look at rules and regulations for outdoor use, we have to recognize—and people may not like to hear this—that we’re going to need to make sacrifices for the common good. That’s the price we pay for living in a democracy. It’s our responsibility to recognize that and, when necessary, make those sacrifices.
Sorry for the long-winded answer! This is just an area I’m deeply passionate about.
Meg: No, I think it’s hard to answer concisely, and I think everything you’ve said is important.
Tom: Well, I’m not always known for being concise, as you’ve probably noticed!
Let me know if you need further refinements!
Meg: Yeah, no, there are a couple of things that really stuck out to me when you were explaining all of that—like, how do we find that balance? And then also, that there is often a sacrifice involved.
One thing I’ve noticed—and you probably have a deeper understanding of this, especially since you’re more integrated into the sportsman realm of the outdoor industry—is that in a lot of respects, even with the nonprofits that contribute to restoration, preservation, and conservation, a lot of that burden seems to fall on sportsmen. Hunting and fishing funds go directly to conservation.
I guess this is a long way of me asking: how can we find a better balance in the outdoor industry as a whole?
Tom: You’re very crafty and diplomatic in asking a question that can definitely cause a lot of consternation with people.
You’re right. I mean, obviously, the hunting and fishing community has a landmark banner to wave, which is that they fund a lot of protection, conservation, access—whatever—through federal law that they were instrumental in putting in place. This law puts an excise tax on the products they use.
I’m on the board of the Department of Wildlife Resources here in Virginia, and a significant amount of funding comes from that excise tax. The benefits of this funding go to many users in the same outdoor recreation space, even those who aren’t impacted by that tax.
To put it even clearer: you don’t pay an excise tax on a backpack, but you do pay one on a fly rod. I don’t want to get into whether that’s fair or not, but it’s noteworthy. The view that other users should participate isn’t an alien concept.
And I think that when I talk about responsibility and sacrifice, the entire outdoor industry needs to think about that—how they’re going to contribute and in what ways they’ll do that.
I can tell you, having worked in this space for over 25 years, it’s complicated. What was done by the hunting and fishing community happened in a very different era. I wish I could say, “Gee, there’s a simple answer to this,” but there isn’t.
It’s complicated. But here’s where I want to put a fine point: if we don’t do it—we, collectively, as outdoor recreation users, groups, and industry—then we can’t cry about losing something we didn’t fight for.
Forewarned is forearmed. I hope people recognize that there’s an element of responsibility here that needs to be acknowledged, and contributions need to be made.
I’m happy to dig deeper into that, but I’ll leave it at that level for now.
Meg: Yeah, that sounds good. It is a difficult question to ask and to answer without causing any type of adverse reaction, I guess.
Tom: Well, that's right. I mean, you know, I’ve had arguments with the Outdoor Industry Association. I’ve sat on the board of the American Fly Fishing Trade Association. I’ve seen it up close and personal—on a policy level, on an economic level. One thing I’ve learned in my years as a lobbyist is that if you start drawing black-and-white lines, setting winners and losers, it becomes much more challenging.
What’s instructive here is that the hunting and fishing community advocated for this—they didn’t have it done to them. They asked for it. And, yes, it was self-serving in a way. That money went to protect game species, so it made sense.
We still live in a world where people look at the great outdoors and think it’s infinite—that there’s plenty of it and we’ll never run out. And that’s all true until you show up at the Great Smoky Mountain National Park, Yellowstone, or even Shenandoah and realize there’s now a reservation system for hikes.
Meg: Shenandoah is going to have a reservation system?
Tom: Yep, for some hikes. Is that bad? Well, it depends on your point of view. I don’t want to label it as good or bad. I want to look at it as what’s responsible. And the responsible thing is to do a little planning.
I used to do search and rescue for years, and the reason I’d get called out was because someone’s plan didn’t work—if they even had a plan at all. People would decide to hike without checking the weather, heading out in a t-shirt and shorts when a cold front was coming in, dropping the temperature by 20 or 30 degrees.
Similarly, if you want to hike in a highly popular area on the spur of the moment, you might not get to do it. It’s like wanting to go to the most popular restaurant or see the opening night of a Star Wars movie. You have to buy a ticket or make a reservation—it requires forethought.
I hate to think we’ve come to that for outdoor spaces, but at the same time, I like to believe it shows people care about the great outdoors. And if you care, you need to take some responsibility and make a bit of a sacrifice.
Meg: Yeah, I noticed that, especially during COVID. Many places that didn’t used to require permits introduced them, and some decided to keep them long-term. From my perspective, like you said, it differs for others, but I see it as a positive thing. Limiting the number of people in an area can really help preserve the space.
Tom: Exactly. As a fly fishing guide, I like to tell people where they can go to avoid the crowds. I’m part of this subset of fly fishers who prefer fishing in small waters. For example, we once planned a trip to the Great Smoky Mountains, and it rained for two days before we got there and kept raining while we were there. Instead of sticking to our original plan, we pulled out maps and said, “Let’s look at smaller places.”
Crowding forces people to either complain or adapt. They can say, “I’m going to try someplace new.” And that’s the upside—it opens up a whole new world and new opportunities. But it takes the right mindset—a willingness to be adventurous and adapt.
Meg: That mindset isn’t always easy for everyone, but I definitely agree with what you’re saying.
Tom: True. But think about the premise of your podcast, Minimalist. In many ways, that’s a minimalist approach. You adapt, use what you have, and figure things out. Instead of carrying 15 different fly rods, I make do with what I have and adapt.
Meg: Right, working with what you have and starting from there.
Tom: Exactly. If a place is crowded, I can either cry about it or find someplace new. Often, that dispersal leads to a better experience for those willing to seek out less-traveled areas.
Meg: Absolutely. I think finding that adventure and adapting to new spaces can be a really enriching experience.
Tom: Exactly. That’s the message—take advantage of opportunities instead of complaining. And when you disperse, do it right. These less-traveled places give you a chance to do things responsibly: reduce your footprint, follow low-impact principles, and pack out what you pack in.
Meg: Yeah, I think that—I mean, I know there is a tipping point, and it could go either way, right? It could go the way that we hope it will, where there are more protections and more conservation.
But it could also go the other way. And I think it goes back to a lot of what you've been saying throughout this conversation—that everyone has a responsibility, but, to use your words, the level of political clout will vary.
Tom: That's right.
Meg: Yeah. So, companies will have a little bit more influence, but sometimes they might not be willing to take those steps until individuals begin petitioning those companies or organizations. Then they're able to move forward and kind of progress together.
Tom: That's right. I think there are two points to that. One is that, like individuals, sometimes companies are reticent to use that clout to get involved in politics. Either they don’t like it, they don’t think it’s going to be helpful to them, or they just don’t want to deal with it. I worked in industry, and the government affairs office wasn’t well liked by most of the people in the business. They thought we were wizards doing alchemy in the back room, fooling around with politics.
So, I get it. I understand. But if you’re taking yourself out of a game that everybody else is playing, your voice isn’t going to be heard. If you aren’t in there talking to your senator, your congressman, the committees, or the agencies, someone else is. I can promise you that. I know that firsthand—someone else will be there, and your voice won’t be heard as clearly.
There are extremely qualified people who can help get those messages across in ways that make a difference. We see that in things like shareholder initiatives and boycotts. Companies need to recognize that, because more of that is coming. If the industry doesn’t arm itself, it’s going to find itself in a very uncomfortable place.
For your listeners—both individuals and industry—pay attention to your political opportunities. Use your political clout to, let’s be honest here, protect your economic interests. I worked in the environmental services industry, and I have a lot of friends in the extraction industry. Those guys are in the game.
And as an industry, you can’t rely solely on trade associations. You need to get involved yourself. Look at how hard Patagonia has been working on this over the past few years, especially recently. That’s a good model. I don’t think they’d feel competitively disadvantaged if others picked up that laboring oar.
You can’t rely on just one company or one trade association to carry the message. I hope we don’t squander the hard-won knowledge of the last 50 years and find ourselves in a situation where either our democracy has been weakened to the point where it’s not working, or the voices of people who care about the outdoors lose the ability to influence decisions that impact those venues.
I know the phrase "existential threat" gets thrown around a lot, but it really is existential for those of us who see it day to day. At 67 years old, I still have faith that responsibility and good judgment will win out. But I’d be lying if I said my faith hasn’t been shaken a little.
Meg: Yeah, no, I agree. That collective action—it does take individuals. Individual action leads to collective action. I think it is possible to keep moving in a positive direction as an industry, but we can’t rely on just one good model. Other people need to join forces to push this forward and make those policy changes.
I think we’ve covered a lot of great points, but as a way to wind down the conversation, is there one specific takeaway you’d like to leave with listeners about the concepts we’ve discussed?
Tom: Yes. I’d say: get engaged, get fired up, participate in advocacy—but don’t do it at the expense of enjoying what you really love. Be that reluctant warrior, that part-time warrior. Be mindful and find that balance.
It’s worth fighting for—it really, really is. But go enjoy it, because that’s what will make you want to fight for it even more. Go outdoors more often than you’re writing your congressman or going to Washington. But don’t forget to get out there and raise a little hell, too.
I think it was John Lewis who said, “Get in good trouble.” Good trouble could be coming back from a wonderful hike, writing in your journal about the views and the things you saw, and realizing how important they are to you. Then, take five minutes to send a note to your congressman saying, “Hey, you really need to protect these wild spaces.”
Meg: No, that’s an awesome message. I love that because it’s all about balance, once again.
If people want to learn more about your work and some of the projects you’re involved in—you wear a lot of hats—how can they find or contact you?
Tom: You can find me on Twitter at @TomSadler, on Facebook as Tom Sadler, and I have a website, The Middle River Group (middle-river-group.com).
I also work for the Marine Fish Conservation Network, which is at conservefish.org, and I write for Mountain Journal.
I’m always happy to engage with people who want to learn how to be good advocates. And I like to think I can teach them how to fly fish on occasion.
Meg: Awesome. I’ll include links to all your socials and contacts, as well as the book and other resources you mentioned. Other than that, thank you for coming on and sharing all your insights.
Tom: Meg, it’s been a true pleasure. Thank you for inviting me and giving me this opportunity.
Meg (Outro): I just want to say thank you again to Tom for taking the time to share his insights and experiences. I hope you enjoyed the conversation as much as I did.
Let me know if this works or if you'd like any adjustments!
Related Episodes
19. Deer Hunting, Sustainability, and Conservation with Kalli Hawkins
44. What is the 30x30 Initiative? with Lexie Grittlefeld
73. Wild Horse Conservation: What's the Problem and How Can We Fix it? with Women in the Wilderness
124. Build a Community of Activists with Mitch Stevens and Russell Lowes
130. Harvesting Nature: Culinary Conservation and Ethical Hunting with Justin Townsend
148. The Current State of Animal Conservation and Deforestation with Katie Cleary
Comments