BHA - misuse of Political Affiliation data?

mproberts

WKR
Joined
Jun 18, 2015
Messages
393
If we are relying on only part of the information, we aren’t truly making accurate assessments.

The exact same thing could be said about the knee jerk P&Y guy that posted in this thread. He isn’t the only one in our nation that has become stoned eared when it comes to hearing what others have to say. It seems that too many people make up their mind with headlines and partial information. When presented the opportunity to actually have first hand knowledge, they turn their ears to stone, and yell louder in an attempt to drown out information that might not support their conclusions.

100% this... it's honestly really sad. The worst is the comments section of an news article or Facebook. I work in a profession that is a hot-button issue for many, but very few truly know anything about the issue. When I see public comments about the issue I always think to myself how do people just throw out "feelings" as "facts" and not feel embarrassed or ashamed inside. Like how can you represent something as a fact with clearly no expertise on the subject? I see it constantly and it never ceases to amaze me. It's honestly just really sad how opinionated and close-minded people have become.
 
Joined
Dec 30, 2014
Messages
8,175
It never stated that 70% are Democrat and never said 60% are independent. It said 70% are republican, independent or non affiliated with 20% democrat.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is his point. It lumped republicans in with independents in an effort to make people assume the organization is made up of a higher % of republicans than it actually is. Democrats know that the majority of hunters are right leaning.

If I had to guess, I would think that a good chunk of the 60% independent/non-affiliated are right leaning but are independent enough in their thoughts to avoid locking themselves into being a republican.
 

bigdesert10

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Sep 20, 2016
Messages
293
Location
Idaho
I think the way it was represented is perfectly reasonable as a response to how BHA has been painted by some Republicans at times. I'm a conservative guy in about the reddest state in the union, and while Land Tawney's background and sometimes his positions make me nervous, I support the mission of BHA and most of their efforts. When BHA opposes politicians' wealthy donors, they get labeled as a "fringe leftist environmental group", as we saw this year in Idaho in the midst of the new trespassing law. I think the title of the press release was at least partially in response to nonsense like that.
 

Trial153

WKR
Joined
Oct 28, 2014
Messages
8,187
Location
NY
It can be dangerous when dealing with the liberal mind, I know.
Great illustration. When in doubt fall back on political tribalism, the default mode. Because that has gotten us so far over the last 60 years.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 10, 2018
Messages
8
Lumping independents & non-affiliated with Republicans vs providing three sets of percentages is definitely questionable and seems like it attempts to achieve what a commented previously - easing the minds of conservatives in BHA (I'm a conservative myself) as independents/NPA could have easily been lumped with Democrats and the numbers would look very similar going the other way.

If one looks through the comments across BHA's social media, it seems like they have aggravated many members over the past month with certain comments about Republicans and also ORV use. Those comments don't bother me as I support BHA's mission, no matter the political leanings of some of the brass.

However, I did find it bizarre how the whole Green Decoys matter was handled recently. I understand that they are trying to reappropriate the Green Decoy accusations (which is baseless and funded by oil interests) and adopt it as there own can be very confusing to potential members. I've spoken to sportsmen who are not members and "Green Decoys" is the first thing they see when they google BHA, which works to dissuade them from joining. BHA brass saying "Yea I'm a Green Decoy" and even creating a shirt for it in an attempt to Yankee-Doodle the term while funny, may not be the best way to handle it as it adds to the confusion.

Also, Tawney recently posting, in reference to certain Green Decoy accusations, that "Damn it feels good to be a gangster" and to get their "pale faces" to Montana and that "My daughter has more blood on her hands than you ever will" was not a particularly good look.

All that being said, I think BHA is a great organizations for conservatives and liberals alike and really hope that it can truly continue to be a bi-partisan group for sportsmen.
 

Jbehredt

WKR
Joined
Mar 4, 2017
Messages
1,702
Location
Colorado
Great illustration. When in doubt fall back on political tribalism, the default mode. Because that has gotten us so far over the last 60 years.

Proud member of the tribe with enough common sense to associate hunting with firearms. You said that cannot be safely assumed about the opposing group.
 

Rthur

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
236
It could be perceived as a damage control statement as well.
The blue team has used monetary denial against their opponents for years.
The red team is just starting to do same.

R
 

blkqi

WKR
Joined
Aug 21, 2017
Messages
433
I think that they are simply trying to draw attention to the fact that BHA has been able to get a group of non-Democrat-affiliated individuals involved in a brand of public land politics which is largely democratic.
 

Murdy

WKR
Joined
Jun 6, 2014
Messages
623
Location
North-Central Illinois
I think a lot of you would be surprised how many people you label "liberals" own guns, hunt, and have served the country. A lot of people who lean left do so out of distrust for corporate power and have all sorts of differing beliefs about guns, hunting, and various social issues.
 

Larry Bartlett

WKR
Rokslide Sponsor
Joined
Feb 13, 2013
Messages
1,502
And keep in mind that survey polls are only as good as the reach. Example, I'm a life member of ABHA but have never been asked by BHA national for any information regarding my political stance, nor do i have a voting record. So this organization cannot add me to their claims of any side whatsoever, even though I've contributed more than $30K of my own funds to help the Alaska chapter succeed over the last decade.

Unfortunately, land management and the fight for hunters and anglers will end with political pulls against development industries...and we will lose. I think BHA is trying to adapt to this climate for the sake of presence in the fight. I can't fault them for their attempts, but i dont read in to beliefs as much as action.

In the end, that's what we're all judged for. Contributions, not beliefs.
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2017
Messages
13
The survey result representation also surprised me. I think a staff writer was given a little too much poetic license. I have always liked RMEF's stance that no matter who is in power over time they have to work with both side to move the core mission forward. Hence no party endorsement. I am excited about the BHA mission and will let this slide but they need some feedback.
That said, my P&Y membership is likely getting dumped after they booked Donald Jr. as speaker for the next gathering. I emailed whether they have a back up plan if he is in federal prison by then. Right or left thinking, these guys were trying to undermine our democracy, and still are.

The only undermining of our democracy I see is the side that is using false accusations to weaken a president they don’t like.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Joined
Jul 23, 2018
Messages
57
The changes coming out of this administration are setting back conservation efforts and public land management 50 years. This wasn't a partisan issue until now. Whether you like or dislike the current president, don't turn a blind eye to what is going on if you love the outdoors.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
 

gbflyer

WKR
Joined
Feb 20, 2017
Messages
1,577
The changes coming out of this administration are setting back conservation efforts and public land management 50 years. This wasn't a partisan issue until now. Whether you like or dislike the current president, don't turn a blind eye to what is going on if you love the outdoors.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Interesting. Wonder if you’ve read about the Restore Our Parks and Public Lands Act in the House or the Restore Our Parks Act in the Senate?
 
Joined
Jul 23, 2018
Messages
57
Interesting. Wonder if you’ve read about the Restore Our Parks and Public Lands Act in the House or the Restore Our Parks Act in the Senate?
Definitely a step in the right direction by Congress but the Trump administration appointees, Zinke and Pruitt in particular, have supported numerous measures that prioritize private interests over those of the public. Not surprising given the strong ties that these two have to the energy lobby. Bears ears monument was the most publicized. You can read emails from senator Orrin Hatch in March 2017 indicating that the new boundaries were designed to remove protections on oil and gas rich areas that would otherwise be protected if under federal management. The state wanted to use the funds from these deposits to bolster the public school system. Thats great PR but very short sighted, which is how politicians operate. Another example is the greenlight given to the pebble mine in Alaska. Too much for me to type but check it out. Like I said, this shouldn't be a partisan issue. It comes down to greed on the part of mainly 2 players; the energy lobby, and the states. The goals of the energy lobby are obvious. The goals of the states are to get ahold of public land to either profit from the resources or sell the land to help balance the budget (states have to run a balanced budget). The reality is that the states can't afford to steward the land so they end up selling it. Also, gutting the EPA and disregarding the scientific community has not helped things. When these public land and environmental decisions are not made in conjunction with the help of our country's biologists, ecologists, climatologists, and environmental scientists, we are in trouble. I would like for my children and grandchildren to have the same opportunities that you and I have to hunt, fish, camp, and hike on our unbelievably rich and unique public land.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
 

gbflyer

WKR
Joined
Feb 20, 2017
Messages
1,577
Definitely a step in the right direction by Congress but the Trump administration appointees, Zinke and Pruitt in particular, have supported numerous measures that prioritize private interests over those of the public. Not surprising given the strong ties that these two have to the energy lobby. Bears ears monument was the most publicized. You can read emails from senator Orrin Hatch in March 2017 indicating that the new boundaries were designed to remove protections on oil and gas rich areas that would otherwise be protected if under federal management. The state wanted to use the funds from these deposits to bolster the public school system. Thats great PR but very short sighted, which is how politicians operate. Another example is the greenlight given to the pebble mine in Alaska. Too much for me to type but check it out. Like I said, this shouldn't be a partisan issue. It comes down to greed on the part of mainly 2 players; the energy lobby, and the states. The goals of the energy lobby are obvious. The goals of the states are to get ahold of public land to either profit from the resources or sell the land to help balance the budget (states have to run a balanced budget). The reality is that the states can't afford to steward the land so they end up selling it. Also, gutting the EPA and disregarding the scientific community has not helped things. When these public land and environmental decisions are not made in conjunction with the help of our country's biologists, ecologists, climatologists, and environmental scientists, we are in trouble. I would like for my children and grandchildren to have the same opportunities that you and I have to hunt, fish, camp, and hike on our unbelievably rich and unique public land.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

This measure was suggested by Secretary Zinke as I understand it and Secretary Pruitt resigned in July.

I live in Alaska. Pebble is fun to debate about but it’s likelihood of happening is pretty slim.

I don’t like federal land passing to state control either. I used to think it was a good idea until the Nature Conservancy gobbled up a bunch of state land here in my home town. What was once public with decent access is now private with the trails gone back to alders and willows with very poor access.
 
Joined
Jul 23, 2018
Messages
57
This measure was suggested by Secretary Zinke as I understand it and Secretary Pruitt resigned in July.

I live in Alaska. Pebble is fun to debate about but it’s likelihood of happening is pretty slim.

I don’t like federal land passing to state control either. I used to think it was a good idea until the Nature Conservancy gobbled up a bunch of state land here in my home town. What was once public with decent access is now private with the trails gone back to alders and willows with very poor access.
Zinke's proposal was different in that he wanted to fund it through proceeds from lifting restrictions on offshore drilling. That died when he cut a deal with Florida's governor not to drill off the coast of Florida. I mention Pruitt because he was put in place by the Trump administration and embodies it's approach to conservation and the environment. Although his successor seems to be more capable of navigating the political minefield, I can't imagine that the policy direction of the department has shifted gears. The decision to lift restrictions on the pebble mine is just an example of the policy direction. It's just hard for me to fathom that expanded oil, gas, and mineral extraction on public land is good for the environment or the people who enjoy it. The inevitable expansion of renewable energy will eventually make some of these issues (not mining obviously) a thing of the past. I just don't want the environment, and public land in particular, to be irreversibly lost or damaged in the interim.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
 
Joined
Oct 2, 2016
Messages
2,651
Location
West Virginia
Williammummy and gusto are of the same breed. Its political puppets that will fail your organization. To the point it will fail due to your nonsense.



Reality is that this administration has not declared one designation to strip the american people of their public lands. It hasn't passed any laws that will negatively affect public lands. Yet gets pinged for doing both. By political zealots too ignorant to think for themselves.



This is what plaques the fight to endure public lands stay public. People so eat up with their party politics, they are unable to see reality. It's flat out disgusting and, the BHA seems rampant with these choir boys. It isn't helping their cause.




Shaking my head at the ignorance duspkayed here.
 
Last edited:

lumis17

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
May 15, 2016
Messages
103
Interesting thread and perspectives. I had the same reaction when I got the email. What came to mind is one of the sayings I dislike the most, but applies more and more the older I get: “don’t hate the player, hate the game”.
 

sndmn11

WKR
Joined
Mar 28, 2017
Messages
9,166
Location
Morrison, Colorado
Definitely a step in the right direction by Congress but the Trump administration appointees, Zinke and Pruitt in particular, have supported numerous measures that prioritize private interests over those of the public. Not surprising given the strong ties that these two have to the energy lobby. Bears ears monument was the most publicized. You can read emails from senator Orrin Hatch in March 2017 indicating that the new boundaries were designed to remove protections on oil and gas rich areas that would otherwise be protected if under federal management. The state wanted to use the funds from these deposits to bolster the public school system. Thats great PR but very short sighted, which is how politicians operate. Another example is the greenlight given to the pebble mine in Alaska. Too much for me to type but check it out. Like I said, this shouldn't be a partisan issue. It comes down to greed on the part of mainly 2 players; the energy lobby, and the states. The goals of the energy lobby are obvious. The goals of the states are to get ahold of public land to either profit from the resources or sell the land to help balance the budget (states have to run a balanced budget). The reality is that the states can't afford to steward the land so they end up selling it. Also, gutting the EPA and disregarding the scientific community has not helped things. When these public land and environmental decisions are not made in conjunction with the help of our country's biologists, ecologists, climatologists, and environmental scientists, we are in trouble. I would like for my children and grandchildren to have the same opportunities that you and I have to hunt, fish, camp, and hike on our unbelievably rich and unique public land.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

I am curious why it is The President's fault for the states' decisions on what to do with land?

If your mother passed away and you gave her car to your son, would your daughter ignore his choice to sell it and only be mad at you?
 
Top