I attended a couple of meetings held by the BLM to invite public comment on some of their plans. I attended them in two different locations, and my wife and I made it a point to be in separate groups both times.
The stated intent was to get comments from the local residents, but there were very few residents in the meetings. A few, but many people there were from various activist groups who had driven in from out of the area to take part. And a few people in the groups were BLM “interns” in plain clothes. They didn’t really hide who they were, but didn’t advertise it either.
They didn’t try to intimidate anyone at all. They didn’t need to. Most of the comments were of the feel-good type that everyone would agree with. The few comments that went against the grain, such as comments that favored ranchers for example, were accepted with good grace... but they were swamped in the midst of other comments.
Because of the nature of the people showing up at the meeting, the immediate bias was toward greater BLM control. The results from every group and every meeting was exactly what BLM wanted to hear.
At the end of the meetings, both times, once all the groups were brought together to display their comments, there was a surprising uniformity. All groups, both meetings, both locations. So I can attest that the method makes it easy for the people leading the meeting to guide and get the results they want. And, done right, no one realizes they’ve been manipulated unless, like us, you show up at more than one meeting and see just how uniform are the results.
This way they can comply with the law that they have to publicize the meeting, but it apparently doesn't say it has to be a local paper. They also make real sure all their enviro-wacko friendly groups are personally invited well in advance by special invitation.