The importance of altruism

I find myself seeing the world differently in many different ways and realizing the difference. The past 2 years I did some soul searching regarding a couple repetitive patterns in my life that impacted some of my relationships, and part of my personal evolution has been observing the importance of altruism. Obviously, I fall short of it.
I've had quite a few positive comments and emails about the New Fly Fisher tv show I did with Phil & Tom. I think the reason the show was so well received was each of us afforded the other to do what we each did best for the greater good of the show. I wasn't pumping my guide company's tires, Tom wasn't pumping his rounded fly fishing abilities, fishing contact network, nor Orvis, and Phil wasn't trying to be one of those "look at me" hosts. Instead, I had a skill to share with hunting and sight fishing browns, Tom has a wonderful charisma about him, and Phil brought out the information with subtle questions, taking a back seat in many instances. It helped that we got along fabulously. Each simply did what we do and made no extra bones about how good we are/aren't. The goal was the bigger picture - to make the show the best it could be. And the show was very well received, which was my hope from the get go - far more than worrying about how I look or how much exposure it brought our company.
The above is nice, but not the jogger for the post.
I attended a Red Deer Fisheries Round Table meeting recently. I've written here about pursuing an updated Fisheries Management Plan for the Red Deer R for years. The local biologist Vance has committed to it many times the past 12 years I've been pressing, only to see other things get in the way - can we not only focus on lake dwelling walleye in this region? The RDR FMP was to get going, but a new gov policy has come down the pipe where intensive public involvement with government must gain approval from a cabinet committee. Yes, something so trivial as this faces up against health care, education, finance, o&g issues, etc. This wouldn't be a big deal, except the concern that caused this motion is that the gov is attempting to minimize negativity coming back to MLAs and cabinet.
If you look at the past 15 years on the Red Deer R, there has been a group hot to implement their plan to change fisheries management policy, procedure, and protocol - by implementing an aggressive stocking plan of triploid rainbows, a daily license fee, trophy license, a dedicated river bio & officers, amongst other things for the Red Deer R. Without commenting on the meat of it, the reality is that it flies in the face of how fisheries are managed in this province. Time & time again they tried to ram their proposal through by going over the local biologist's head, meeting with MLAs, environment ministers, etc. I doubt you can find an MLA near the Red Deer - Rocky Mountain House area that hasn't heard from them. All I can comment on is that the result has been that each MLA and cabinet minister has to rely on its staff expertise and the policy, protocol, and policy. Hence, the group's hope has been quashed at every turn and the experience has generally been negative. The great irony is that the group has not attended a single Red Deer Region Fisheries Round Table meeting, choosing to circumvent procedure and go straight to upper government.
The connection now is that the Red Deer R needs an updated Fisheries Management Plan. The one existing was printed in 1994, was supposed to be update every 5 years with science occurring. Time marches on, a massive flood alters the river, and things change. The walleye population has changed upwards dramatically, the whitefish are in the dumps, the browns are holding their own, and pike remain a bit of an enigma most of the year save opening 2 weeks. We need a fall closure for the whitefish and browns, and whitefish regulations need to shift downwards. And we need some new guiding principles, public input and support for direction on the river - a fisheries management plan. It's obvious.
However, a group that has pushed so long and hard to get changes on the river, the changes they deem fit, has caused such a stir of negativity in government that - get the irony - the public process may not be granted by cabinet for fear of negative government interaction. How do you like that?
It's one thing to see an issue, see areas where change is needed. It's another to have personal thoughts. But it's altogether another position to honor the system, the people, the policies, procedures, and protocols while trying to 'improve' things that you might hope to. The altruistic see these things and hope for a positive change that benefits the whole, not just themselves. Is it possible to have altruism in a completely different dimension - yes. But if your altruism in your dimension is completely opposed to reality, yet you fervently oppose those in reality, that's where it breaks down. And that's exactly where the Red Deer River Fisheries Management Plan may never get off the ground.
My encouragement is to those seeking to get involved in any issue to make our society or resources better - seek out the foundations of what you trying to change first, get in touch with the guiding principles, policies, protocols, and procedures and see how they might work/blend with your ideas. If they can be worked with or modified and you work within the procedural boundaries to effect change, perfect. Even if we are going to simply support a cause it's up to us to know these things before supporting it.
Yes, I'm fully aware that even talking on the level of altruism I'm going to get raked over the coals by these people, even though I've not mentioned if I agree with their points or not. I only hope they appreciate the intent is not directed solely at them, rather, using their example as a basis to the point for everyone who is considering involvement. Speaking altruistically of course.