Green Decoys?????

[muleman]

[video=youtube_share;VEKMu7ooJFs]http://youtu.be/VEKMu7ooJFs[/video]

 

[Mike21]

Ha I just posted on this, didn't see your post,

I usually wouldn't bring up politics but I was recently contemplating joining the back country hunters and anglers (BHA). I was surprised to see the BHA is funded by environmental groups in no way friendly to firearms who also support animal rights groups. BHA Executive Director Land Tawney is deeply involved in Democratic Party politics. He was a member of the Montana Sportsmen for Obama Committee etc. now don't get me wrong we are all free to support any political party we want, just make sure you research where your money is going.

Also I found that groups like Trout Unlimited and Theodore Roosevelt Consevation Partnership use their funds to lobby against the energy industry. I know many Rok Sliders make their living in the energy industry and may support the conservation efforts of these groups but your money is also used for many other things, even supporting "anti gun violence" aka gun control politicians. TRCP is also behind the formation of the Union Sports- men’s Alliance. A joint effort with 20 labor unions, the Union Sportsmen’s Alliance’s goal is “to lure the political allegiance of gun-owning union members away from the NRA and its political agenda,” according to The Washing- ton Post

Once again this is fyi only not an attack on anyone's political beliefs. I still might join BHA........

Here is a couple sources.

https://www.greendecoys.com/wp-conte...oys-report.pdf

http://watchdog.org/203523/sportsmen...ts-fires-back/

 

[Jason Snyder]

http://www.bermanexposed.org/

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/31/u...estern-energy-alliance-speech-taped.html?_r=1

http://www.hatchmag.com/articles/trashing-sportsmen-influence-spurs-smear-campaign/7712361

I would hope that folks are willing to look deeper into this than a propaganda piece that is coming from a mysterious "watchdog" organization that doesn't divulge who funds it. The "Green Decoy" attack is nothing more than an attempted smear on conservation groups that are fighting for environmental causes that all of us as backcountry hunters should care about.

This is not to say in any way that I am against energy development. However, if you think that all energy developers have the best interests of the environment in mind then I have ocean front property in Arizona to sell you. Backcountry Hunters and Anglers is a 501C3, and as such all of their books are open to the public. Anyone can find out where they got their money from.

Here are some of the research projects that have been funded by the Pew Charitable Trust, a BHA donor.

http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research...cdf666fb/all/0

Here's another grant provider for BHA and what they do.

http://conservationlands.org/home/what-wedo

Here is a database of grants awarded by the Wilburforce Foundation.

http://www.wilburforce.org/grant-history

Now, when one looks at this you will find some names that are very green. Dig deeper though. For example the Y2Y organization has a listing of their collaborative projects. Take a look at their partners. Is the Montana Dept of Transportation an anti hunting organization, or are they merely trying to do something meaningful for the environment and the wildlife? Couldn't the same be asked of other collaborative partners?

Another grant recipient of the Wilburforce is the Nature Conservancy, which owns properties in Washington, Idaho, Montana, etc. that are open for hunting, in areas that provide some valuable access to deer and upland bird habitat. This is a project in Montana that the Wilburforce has helped fund.

http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives...cy-project.xml

One of the claims is that Land Tawney stumped for the Democratic Party in opposition to Denny Rehberg. Truth of the matter is I'm glad he did. Denny Rehberg was in no way a sportman's advocate. Senator Tester, who defeated him, has done a good job of advocating for sportsman's interests.

I don't care what anyone's political affiliation is. To be honest, I don't know what mine is anymore. I don't vote by party line, but by candidate quality and issues. I see this as nothing more than an attempt by some big money corporations to discredit the organizations that are doing their best to protect yours and my wildlands heritage. It's sad that it's considered a negative to be an environmentalist. You're damned right I'm an environmentalist, and I'm proud to say so. I'm proud to say that I value roadless areas and clean streams with native fish. I value core wildlife habitat like the Rocky Mountain Front. Some things are worth conditional protection, and others are worth protection at all costs.

Ask yourself, who stands to gain the most from the current push to transfer public lands to state ownership, and who stands to lose the most. BHA has stood in opposition to transferring federal lands to state ownership, and as such is in the crosshairs of huge energy developers. Who do you trust to look out for your hunting area?

 

[Ceby7]

http://www.bermanexposed.org/

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/31/u...estern-energy-alliance-speech-taped.html?_r=1

http://www.hatchmag.com/articles/trashing-sportsmen-influence-spurs-smear-campaign/7712361

I would hope that folks are willing to look deeper into this than a propaganda piece that is coming from a mysterious "watchdog" organization that doesn't divulge who funds it. The "Green Decoy" attack is nothing more than an attempted smear on conservation groups that are fighting for environmental causes that all of us as backcountry hunters should care about.

This is not to say in any way that I am against energy development. However, if you think that all energy developers have the best interests of the environment in mind then I have ocean front property in Arizona to sell you. Backcountry Hunters and Anglers is a 501C3, and as such all of their books are open to the public. Anyone can find out where they got their money from.

Here are some of the research projects that have been funded by the Pew Charitable Trust, a BHA donor.

http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research...cdf666fb/all/0

Here's another grant provider for BHA and what they do.

http://conservationlands.org/home/what-wedo

Here is a database of grants awarded by the Wilburforce Foundation.

http://www.wilburforce.org/grant-history

Now, when one looks at this you will find some names that are very green. Dig deeper though. For example the Y2Y organization has a listing of their collaborative projects. Take a look at their partners. Is the Montana Dept of Transportation an anti hunting organization, or are they merely trying to do something meaningful for the environment and the wildlife? Couldn't the same be asked of other collaborative partners?

Another grant recipient of the Wilburforce is the Nature Conservancy, which owns properties in Washington, Idaho, Montana, etc. that are open for hunting, in areas that provide some valuable access to deer and upland bird habitat. This is a project in Montana that the Wilburforce has helped fund.

http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives...cy-project.xml

One of the claims is that Land Tawney stumped for the Democratic Party in opposition to Denny Rehberg. Truth of the matter is I'm glad he did. Denny Rehberg was in no way a sportman's advocate. Senator Tester, who defeated him, has done a good job of advocating for sportsman's interests.

I don't care what anyone's political affiliation is. To be honest, I don't know what mine is anymore. I don't vote by party line, but by candidate quality and issues. I see this as nothing more than an attempt by some big money corporations to discredit the organizations that are doing their best to protect yours and my wildlands heritage. It's sad that it's considered a negative to be an environmentalist. You're damned right I'm an environmentalist, and I'm proud to say so. I'm proud to say that I value roadless areas and clean streams with native fish. I value core wildlife habitat like the Rocky Mountain Front. Some things are worth conditional protection, and others are worth protection at all costs.

Ask yourself, who stands to gain the most from the current push to transfer public lands to state ownership, and who stands to lose the most. BHA has stood in opposition to transferring federal lands to state ownership, and as such is in the crosshairs of huge energy developers. Who do you trust to look out for your hunting area?

http://conservationlands.org/home/what-wedo

Well said, I agree!

 

[hodgeman]

I've been a member of BHA for a while. I've talked to a lot of folks in that organization and politically I'm sure we could find an endless list of stuff to argue about. That's probably also true of my association with the GOP, our local ADFG advisory committee, and a bunch of other groups of people I deal with.

But we all agree on one thing...wild critters need big tracts of wilderness to survive. If that's the only thing we agree on, it's enough to make them worth my while.

 

[muleman]

A couple of good posts so far. I was blindsided by the green decoy video when I saw it today.

At this moment I'm not informed enough to say who's doing right by us.

I do have concerns with one entity controlling the majority of our public lands. Anymore it seems that politicians will use any loophole to push their agenda through without legislation. Leaving the mess to be fought out in court. We are currently seeing this with the BATFE. What would we do if suddenly there was a decree from the Department of Agriculture that said to protect the nations food supply (or the rare naked toad) all hunting on USFS land is now banned?

 

[hodgeman]

I do have concerns with one entity controlling the majority of our public lands. Anymore it seems that politicians will use any loophole to push their agenda through without legislation. Leaving the mess to be fought out in court. We are currently seeing this with the BATFE. What would we do if suddenly there was a decree from the Department of Agriculture that said to protect the nations food supply (or the rare naked toad) all hunting on USFS land is now banned?

That's a good point and likely valid. To my way of thinking there's a whole bunch of folks out there with agendas...Fed, State, Corporate. You have to make alliances where you can and know where you can't. Fed control of big swaths of land isn't exactly ideal, but states individually selling off public lands to corporate interests isn't going to go well for us as hunters either.

Heck, some folks advocate turning all public lands into private and even called the North American Model of Wildlife Management "socialism"... like everything else political... it makes for some strange bedfellows.

 

[muleman]

That's a good point and likely valid. To my way of thinking there's a whole bunch of folks out there with agendas...Fed, State, Corporate. You have to make alliances where you can and know where you can't. Fed control of big swaths of land isn't exactly ideal, but states individually selling off public lands to corporate interests isn't going to go well for us as hunters either.

Heck, some folks advocate turning all public lands into private and even called the North American Model of Wildlife Management "socialism"... like everything else political... it makes for some strange bedfellows.

History has taught me that when money is introduced into anything; the core values of the founders are quickly perverted and often abandoned at will.

I just wish I knew who I could trust.

In the last two years I have lost access to two of my core hunting areas for my kids. In both instances prviate intrests decided they didn't want people "hunters" to access the public land through their un-developed, un-farmed, un-grazed, otherwise raw land.

I know we better get it figured out pretty qucik otherwise it'll be too late.

 

[gmajor]

I support TRCP and am a member of BHA, haven't heard of the third group mentioned. Frankly, I think being labeled as a "green decoy" by a watchdog group whose main purpose appears to be supporting the sale of federal lands to the states and subsequently developing them is the biggest endorsement for these groups I can think of.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. We are environmentalists/conservationists or whatever we want to call ourselves, and the red/blue divide has fragmented the outdoor community and reduced our collective power. BHA and TRCP are doing very real, very direct things to benefit us.

*Also, very well stated Jason. Thank you for taking the time to write that.

 

[Mike21]

"One of the claims is that Land Tawney stumped for the Democratic Party in opposition to Denny Rehberg. Truth of the matter is I'm glad he did. Denny Rehberg was in no way a sportman's advocate. Senator Tester, who defeated him, has done a good job of advocating for sportsman's interests"

And he was the chairmen of Montana Sportsmens for Obama. Fact.....

 

[gmajor]

"
And he was the chairmen of Montana Sportsmens for Obama. Fact.....

I'm honestly not trying to be snarky (seriously), just trying to follow the logic of why you think that negatively impacts habitat conservation and hunting opportunity. I'm assuming that the argument might be that by supporting Obama, he supported a party that is more "anti-gun" than the other, and such an agenda would impact your/others ability to hunt with a gun? Just curious (I might even be misinterpreting what you wrote by assuming you think that's a negative thing). I'm going back and forth on even posting this because I don't want the whole discussion to turn partisan, I'm just trying to understand this purely from a hunter's interest perspective.

 

[T43]

Those organizations must be doing enough good to get the attention of the land grabbers funding that propaganda so they have my support. Funny that the video didn't mention that the Dem Tawney was stumping for is half of the reason we have management of wolves in Idaho and Montana. I met Tawney last year and although I'm sure we have some political differences it was obvious that he is very dedicated to hunting and wildlife and even more dedicated to making sure his kids, my kids and everyone's kids and grand kids have the ability to hunt and fish and the opportunity to do it on public land.

 

[Mike21]

I'm honestly not trying to be snarky (seriously), just trying to follow the logic of why you think that negatively impacts habitat conservation and hunting opportunity. I'm assuming that the argument might be that by supporting Obama, he supported a party that is more "anti-gun" than the other, and such an agenda would impact your/others ability to hunt with a gun? Just curious (I might even be misinterpreting what you wrote by assuming you think that's a negative thing). I'm going back and forth on even posting this because I don't want the whole discussion to turn partisan, I'm just trying to understand this purely from a hunter's interest perspective.

My argument is that I believe in both, conservation and the right to bear arms. So do your research before you send off your money. Because from my reaserch it looks like BHA supports politicians that oppose one of those things essential to hunting and protection; firearms. Giving away a bolt action rifle with non lead bullets is not supporting gun rights, it's basically a statement of what they believe in, specific weapons for hunting purposes. The second amendment says nothing about hunting...

 

[Forestryguy]

http://www.bermanexposed.org/

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/31/u...estern-energy-alliance-speech-taped.html?_r=1

http://www.hatchmag.com/articles/trashing-sportsmen-influence-spurs-smear-campaign/7712361

I would hope that folks are willing to look deeper into this than a propaganda piece that is coming from a mysterious "watchdog" organization that doesn't divulge who funds it. The "Green Decoy" attack is nothing more than an attempted smear on conservation groups that are fighting for environmental causes that all of us as backcountry hunters should care about.

This is not to say in any way that I am against energy development. However, if you think that all energy developers have the best interests of the environment in mind then I have ocean front property in Arizona to sell you. Backcountry Hunters and Anglers is a 501C3, and as such all of their books are open to the public. Anyone can find out where they got their money from.

Here are some of the research projects that have been funded by the Pew Charitable Trust, a BHA donor.

http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research...cdf666fb/all/0

Here's another grant provider for BHA and what they do.

http://conservationlands.org/home/what-wedo

Here is a database of grants awarded by the Wilburforce Foundation.

http://www.wilburforce.org/grant-history

Now, when one looks at this you will find some names that are very green. Dig deeper though. For example the Y2Y organization has a listing of their collaborative projects. Take a look at their partners. Is the Montana Dept of Transportation an anti hunting organization, or are they merely trying to do something meaningful for the environment and the wildlife? Couldn't the same be asked of other collaborative partners?

Another grant recipient of the Wilburforce is the Nature Conservancy, which owns properties in Washington, Idaho, Montana, etc. that are open for hunting, in areas that provide some valuable access to deer and upland bird habitat. This is a project in Montana that the Wilburforce has helped fund.

http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives...cy-project.xml

One of the claims is that Land Tawney stumped for the Democratic Party in opposition to Denny Rehberg. Truth of the matter is I'm glad he did. Denny Rehberg was in no way a sportman's advocate. Senator Tester, who defeated him, has done a good job of advocating for sportsman's interests.

I don't care what anyone's political affiliation is. To be honest, I don't know what mine is anymore. I don't vote by party line, but by candidate quality and issues. I see this as nothing more than an attempt by some big money corporations to discredit the organizations that are doing their best to protect yours and my wildlands heritage. It's sad that it's considered a negative to be an environmentalist. You're damned right I'm an environmentalist, and I'm proud to say so. I'm proud to say that I value roadless areas and clean streams with native fish. I value core wildlife habitat like the Rocky Mountain Front. Some things are worth conditional protection, and others are worth protection at all costs.

Ask yourself, who stands to gain the most from the current push to transfer public lands to state ownership, and who stands to lose the most. BHA has stood in opposition to transferring federal lands to state ownership, and as such is in the crosshairs of huge energy developers. Who do you trust to look out for your hunting area?

Thanks for saving me having to type that much. I sit in the middle on a lot of political things. I have a bumber sticker on my truck that says "Tree hugging Dirt Worshiper", right next to my NRA Life Member sticker.

 

[Matt Cashell]

I sit in the middle on a lot of political things.

Wait. You can't do that. You have to choose a team.

 

[MattB]

My argument is that I believe in both, conservation and the right to bear arms. So do your research before you send off your money. Because from my reaserch it looks like BHA supports politicians that oppose one of those things essential to hunting and protection; firearms. Giving away a bolt action rifle with non lead bullets is not supporting gun rights, it's basically a statement of what they believe in, specific weapons for hunting purposes. The second amendment says nothing about hunting...

Each of the Republican and Democratic parties arguably oppose one of either conservation or the right to bear arms. These BHA/greendecoy threads are devolving into thinly-veiled partisan drivel.

 

[gelton]

A couple of good posts so far. I was blindsided by the green decoy video when I saw it today.

At this moment I'm not informed enough to say who's doing right by us.

I do have concerns with one entity controlling the majority of our public lands. Anymore it seems that politicians will use any loophole to push their agenda through without legislation. Leaving the mess to be fought out in court. We are currently seeing this with the BATFE. What would we do if suddenly there was a decree from the Department of Agriculture that said to protect the nations food supply (or the rare naked toad) all hunting on USFS land is now banned?

It's good for those that are members of a political party known to be anti second amendment to found and become members of hunter/angler societies because they like to make the 2nd amendment all about shooting sports and hunting but not about self defense or for protection of liberties. Meanwhile the republicans could care less about the 1st or the 4th.

This creates framed arguments that even the NRA falls victim to. Take the m855 ban for instance. People are arguing its "sporting purposes" when the 2nd amendment had nothing to do with sporting purposes. Anytime politicians get involved in anything, their motives, as well as the groups they support should be under the microscope.

 

[T43]

We are much more in danger of losing public land than we are of losing the right to bear arms.