[reason162]

It's not at all analogous, even beyond the money spent. The NRA is about perceived rights vs. perceived safety, as mentioned it's pretty simple and straight forward + the politics line up, ie pro gun-anti government vs. anti gun-pro regulations. On top of that you have a very active gun industry sponsorship. They can frame the debate in a very simplified format: keep guns, take guns away. It's only zero-sum for the gun owners, not the anti-gun people.

What we're dealing with is a public/natural resource problem with various factions (comm, rec, rec-for-profit, conservationists) with the government smack in the middle. Almost all can agree on one thing: the science is lacking. But for more and better science, that means more funding, more oversight, which means more money to the government...that doesn't necessarily line up with any preexisting political allegiances.