BHA Rendezvous

[BuzzH]

Right, I figure your experience is vastly different than mine. I might agree with you completely if I'd lived in your shoes. What concerns me about you is you won't answer my simple answer. Would you support a group that supports public lands and anti hunting? Not answering my question is a huge red flag to me. If you answer yes, or people who do are one issue hunters, according to me. Also, you don't get that public lands do mean something to me. They mean much, much more to you. Maybe I'm real naive too?

Its always interesting to me that people want to place other people in tidy little boxes, so their pre-determined biases can be confirmed.

Why does that question matter to you? What makes it important? Why is it a "red flag"?

The way a collaboration works, is not to pick apart each other over the differences, but to focus on the things that we agree on. So, if that means that I work with a group to solve a public lands issue that we agree on...frankly I don't give a chit what their position is on politics. What they think about hunting, fishing, or trapping. What color they are. What religion they are. I just flat don't care...lets focus on the issue at hand, period.

Its been my experience that once you start a dialogue and work with diverse groups over an issue you have in common, its pretty difficult for them to later knife you in the back. They still may not agree on everything, but they sure as hell will respect someone that they went to battle with on the same side of an issue.

I'm tired of fighting every battle alone...and have seen how things get done when you reach consensus. Consensus and collaboration bears only one thing, and that's fruit.

 

[orionthehunter1]

If public lands are of no concern to you, and you think public lands should be exploited for profit, it explains why you wouldn't align with BHA.

My experience is vastly different...nearly 180 degrees different. A result of being born and raised in Montana and Wyoming my whole life. I tend to place a pretty high value on public lands and keeping them.

yes bill I was saying they are hypocrites because Buzz clearly states that public lands should not be exploited for profit and that is 90% of Patagonia's business

 

[Billinsd]

Like we agree we are both different. We think and express ourselves different and that's fine. The question was real simple. It's a red flag to me when people answer questions with questions. You have answered the question in your signature style. I get that your main goal is saving private lands and you are willing to work with those that you disagree with to save private lands. That's why I called you a one issue person. Later been nice joisting back and forth. Have a great weekend!! Bill

 

[Billinsd]

yes bill I was saying they are hypocrites because Buzz clearly states that public lands should not be exploited for profit and that is 90% of Patagonia's business

Thanks.

 

[Trial153]

90% of Internet stats are made up.

 

[elkduds]

http://www.patagonia.com/recycled-nylon.html

 

[cuerro viejo]

You don’t have to support Patagonia to support BHA.

I’m cool with that. I prefer to get my clothing from Rokslide sponsors, especially those that also support BHA.

You can give directly or purchase from another sponsor.

There is a difference in a donation and a bought and paid for platform to sell a line of BS that’s ultimately about consumerism.

Obviously Patagonia can donate to who ever they want. But was it about a donation or buying a platform to cover up there historical anti hunting campaign to win a market segment?

The way Patagonia has been elevated above reproach and thier anti-hunting tactics justified in this thread solely based off a donation to BHA says money well spent on their part.

 

[cuerro viejo]

Hang Tight! Routing to checkout...

Well sweet Mobil’s motor oil is recycled in to diesel also. So why are they still refining crude into diesel ?

Hell I have a wind energy electric policy for my home. Guess we can turn off the Natural gas electric plants....

 

[Matt Cashell]

But was it about a donation or buying a platform to cover up there historical anti hunting campaign to win a market segment?

It is certainly more nuanced than just saying Patagonia is anti-hunting, but I am sure glad that they are now publicly supporting hunters, at least on the public land issue. That is good for the reasons myself and others have already outlined. I wish every outdoor company, whether they were neutral to hunting, or even anti-hunting in the past, now moved to donate to BHA and publicly support hunters standing up for public lands.

The way Patagonia has been elevated above reproach and thier anti-hunting tactics justified in this thread solely based off a donation to BHA says money well spent on their part.

Money spent on BHA is well-spent in my opinion. They are actively fighting to get you and me access to more public land and more waters. This a worthy cause. I would gladly have you standing with us on the matter, but if this sponsor is something you can't get past, then BHA isn't for you. i still hope you find a way to support public lands anyway.

 

[Jason Snyder]

So this is fake too. Your arguments sound like the SFW blowhards


Read more: IRS Complaint Targets Backcountry Hunters & Anglers
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook


While nonprofits are required to publicly report major donations on their tax returns, BHA has not been doing so, despite getting most of its revenue from a handful of radical environmental organizations.

In 2011 and 2012, 28 percent and 33 percent of the BHA’s total revenue came from the radical environmentalist-funded Western Conservation Foundation. However, BHA elected to omit Schedule B—the reporting of major donations—from its own tax returns for these years, in apparent violation of IRS rules.

Click here to view the complaint.

Backcountry Hunters & Anglers purports to be a voice for sportsmen, but its funding indicates it is simply a mouthpiece for left-wing environmentalists. All told, 60 percent of BHA’s revenue in 2012 came from three Big Green sources: Western Conservation Foundation, Wilburforce Foundation, and Hewlett Foundation—a fact BHA apparently doesn’t want the public to know. The Environmental Policy Alliance was able to construct this data by looking at the grantors’ individual tax returns.


“Backcountry Hunters and Anglers is hiding from the public how much money it gets from radical environmentalists,” commented Will Coggin, senior research analyst at the Environmental Policy Alliance. “The IRS should immediately demand that BHA file amended returns and hold BHA accountable for its years of incomplete tax returns.”

View the complaint here. According to the IRS, penalties for filing an incomplete tax return can be up to $10,000 for BHA for each return.

Along with receiving nearly $280,000 in 2011 and 2012 from the Western Conservation Foundation—which also funds Natural Resources Defense Council and Earthjustice (the “law firm of the environment”)—BHA has received $165,000 from the Wilburforce Foundation in recent years, a Seattle group that also funds Greenpeace, the Sierra Club Foundation, and others. BHA also received $100,000 from the wealthy, radical, San Francisco-based Hewlett Foundation and nearly $60,000 from the environmentalist Pew Charitable Trusts for “policy” in 2012/13.


“Backcountry Hunters and Anglers is just one of several groups funded by Big Green that trips over itself to brag about its ‘sportsmen’ credentials while advocating left-wing interests,” said Coggin. “BHA is nothing more than a new shade of camo to hide an environmentalist agenda.”

BHA is one of several “sportsmen” groups that takes substantial money from Big Green. The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership (TRCP) gets 77% of its contributions from just 8 donors, much of it from San Francisco-area environmentalist foundations. Trout Unlimited, which helped form TRCP, has taken tens of millions of dollars from San Francisco-area foundations that want to shut down major energy sources in America. The Izaak Walton League of America, meanwhile, has taken millions from anti-energy activists, including the anti-gun, Chicago-based Joyce Foundation, on whose board President Barack Obama sat for 8 years.

Sorry man, but if you believe this shit you probably also believe in Santa Clause.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JWP58]

Nope you haven't or I'm missing something. If you have answered show me or someone else show me. I could have missed it. Thanks!

*hint* you arent going to get an actual answer

 

[cuerro viejo]

It is certainly more nuanced than just saying Patagonia is anti-hunting, but I am sure glad that they are now publicly supporting hunters, at least on the public land issue. That is good for the reasons myself and others have already outlined. I wish every outdoor company, whether they were neutral to hunting, or even anti-hunting in the past, now moved to donate to BHA and publicly support hunters standing up for public lands.



Money spent on BHA is well-spent in my opinion. They are actively fighting to get you and me access to more public land and more waters. This a worthy cause. I would gladly have you standing with us on the matter, but if this sponsor is something you can't get past, then BHA isn't for you. i still hope you find a way to support public lands anyway.

We will have to Agree to Disagree.

 

[Mike7]

I support public lands, but I must say that some of the things that I have heard out of some BHA members makes me somewhat skeptical at times. I understand that some members don't necessarily represent BHA's overall views on things, but they can still sometimes leave a bad taste in my mouth. Many of these members seem very hypocritical in my opinion, so that also gives me pause.

I have no problem supporting the RMEF and NRA, which seem to have clear missions, their actions support their words, and they do a good job keeping people educated about what they are doing if you are willing to access this information and not believe every mainstream media pundit's false narrative on these organizations.

Maybe if Matt C. was the only BHA spokesman, then I could get fully on board with BHA right now. And I have no problem with BHA taking money from Patagonia, if Patagonia is not able to corrupt their mission, but I would have a problem maybe if BHA was giving money regularly to very progressive organizations.

I would like to see BHA work with politicians and government agencies to not only protect lands and access to them, but also realize that many things threaten our public lands and this "greatest concentration of undistributed wealth" in the world as Randy Newberg appropriately calls it. I could be wrong, maybe this is happening behind the scenes and behind all of the rhetoric and not being publicized? An attitude of no land transfers for any reason or any responsible resource development, rather than taking each instance on a case by case basis, doesn't seem like a winning strategy to me.

Looking at the bigger picture, I feel that our budget deficits & overall pubic debt along with unfettered immigration & population growth is a "direct" threat to our public lands and public land access, which I have personally seen occur in just my lifetime. I don't automatically think that every politician who supports states' rights is out to vote against public lands because it will somehow financially benefit them, especially when these politicians are for balanced budgets and against illegal immigration and unfettered immigration. In fact, just the opposite, I think the crony capitalistic political establishment (made up of most of both political parties) is the greatest threat to public lands.

 

[Mike7]

I would love to see articles like the following someday:

"The BHA Institute for Legislative Action this week worked with Idaho citizens to help strike down a bill which would have done nothing to protect private property rights, but instead would limit public land access and cause many potentially avoidable legal conflicts. BHA lawyers are now working with gov't staffers & lawyers, law enforcement, etc. to craft a bill which all sides can agree upon and which maintains public access while increasing penalties for land owners who harass law abiding recreationists and also increasing penalties for people who destroy private property signage and who repetitively/knowingly trespass."

"The BHA lawyers this week worked with BLM, the local sheriff, and local hunters to maintain public access to a trailhead that crosses the corner of a private ranch, and which has been used by the public for decades. Only recently was public access disputed when the rancher started illegally denying access to the public."

"The BHA ILA this week, working with politicians from both sides, helped to effect a land transfer securing low elevation mule deer wintering habitat from planned development and adjacent to forest service land, in exchange for other government land and buildings that are sitting vacant."

"The BHA ILA this week in coordination with US Fish and Wildlife and the EPA helped create an agreement which allows extraction of natural gas from the "X" mule deer range while only having a minimal temporary effect on recreation, and with strict rules in place for the extraction which will occur at a time of the year when the mule deer are not using the land, and with a minimum of roads installed...and with all new roads removed at the projects completion."

You get the idea.

 

[Matt Cashell]

I support public lands, but I must say that some of the things that I have heard out of some BHA members makes me somewhat skeptical at times. I understand that some members don't necessarily represent BHA's overall views on things, but they can still sometimes leave a bad taste in my mouth.

I think you can say this about individuals in any organization. I have heard members of BHA say things I don't like or agree with too. I still like to work in a collaborative way for a common goal.

Maybe if Matt C. was the only BHA spokesman, then I could get fully on board with BHA right now.

Ha! Maybe I should send Land Tawney a bill! Thanks for the kind words, but I am not a spokesman. Just a lowly member, and all of my posts here are my own opinions. If you were a BHA member, you would still be entitled to your opinion as well. I don't agree with every position BHA has taken (Quiet Waters debacle comes to mind), but overall I think it is the best organization to provide voice to the important public access and conservation issues that matter to me. No one member or even board member speaks solely for BHA. Their positions come from collaborative effort.

I think the crony capitalistic political establishment (made up of most of both political parties) is the greatest threat to public lands.

I agree, that is why the wide range of political views and backgrounds of BHA members provides the best advocacy for public lands, conservation, and access.

 

[BuzzH]

I would love to see articles like the following someday:

"The BHA Institute for Legislative Action this week worked with Idaho citizens to help strike down a bill which would have done nothing to protect private property rights, but instead would limit public land access and cause many potentially avoidable legal conflicts. BHA lawyers are now working with gov't staffers & lawyers, law enforcement, etc. to craft a bill which all sides can agree upon and which maintains public access while increasing penalties for land owners who harass law abiding recreationists and also increasing penalties for people who destroy private property signage and who repetitively/knowingly trespass."

"The BHA lawyers this week worked with BLM, the local sheriff, and local hunters to maintain public access to a trailhead that crosses the corner of a private ranch, and which has been used by the public for decades. Only recently was public access disputed when the rancher started illegally denying access to the public."

"The BHA ILA this week, working with politicians from both sides, helped to effect a land transfer securing low elevation mule deer wintering habitat from planned development and adjacent to forest service land, in exchange for other government land and buildings that are sitting vacant."

"The BHA ILA this week in coordination with US Fish and Wildlife and the EPA helped create an agreement which allows extraction of natural gas from the "X" mule deer range while only having a minimal temporary effect on recreation, and with strict rules in place for the extraction which will occur at a time of the year when the mule deer are not using the land, and with a minimum of roads installed...and with all new roads removed at the projects completion."

You get the idea.

A perfect example of what you're talking about...

State board denies controversial land swap | Wyoming News | billingsgazette.com

The Wyoming Chapter worked with the top elected WY officials on this one, as well as the Albany County Commission. If this exchange would have passed, it would have cut one of the 2 access points to about 10K acres, been a net loss to about half that with no legal access at all. The State Land Board was contacted directly by myself and another WYBHA board member in Casper. We also had full support of this from the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. The State Land Board ruled against the land exchange unanimously.

A few months ago, WYBHA supported a successful State land exchange that resulted in increased access to State and other Federal lands...phase 2 of the Bull Creek exchange.

State board gives thumbs-up to Bull Creek No. 2 swap - Buffalo Bulletin: Home

We've also met with the assistant state lands director regarding access to other State lands in Wyoming...access that is currently not available. I'm confident, through consensus/collaboration, that Wyoming recreationists are going to see increased access, stay tuned.

The information is out there, but I do agree that BHA shouldn't be so shy about their success in keeping, increasing, and maintaining access to our wildlife resources and public lands.

Another example of WYBHA putting its money where it matters. We've donated money to our AccesYes program every year since the Chapter formed, and will be doing so again in the next couple weeks.

Wyoming BHA Donates to AccessYes! - DEV - Backcountry Hunters and Anglers

 

[BuzzH]

Another example of WYBHA and its members just quietly doing the right thing:

Cabin in Muddy Mountain Hunter Management Area vandalized, authorities ask for information | Cops & Courts | trib.com

This vandalism was NOT done by hunters, yet WYBHA and our member/co-chair, Jeff Muratore were on this issue as soon as we heard about it. Jeff was one of the first to personally donate money to a fund set up to compensate the landowners for repairs caused by the vandalism. WYBHA also donated money to the GF reward program that is used to pay cash awards to anyone that reports crap like this and results in a conviction. There were other wildlife/hunting orgs that stood up and helped on this as well, and the landowners took notice who was first to not only condemn the vandalism, but who was there with the money. I heard that the landowners respectfully declined the money raised, but I also heard they greatly appreciated the offer.

We're just not always out there tooting our own horns about this stuff, just doing what WYBHA does.

An npr piece that may be worth a listen:

Push To Transfer Federal Lands To States Has Sportsmen On Edge : NPR

Lots more that I could post...but have a short eared owl survey to do.

 

[fatbacks]

I am going to put on my favorite Patagonia jacket, fill up my water bottle bottle I bought from REI, grab my AR-10 and go target shooting on some public lands this week.

Wish me luck - I hope I don’t spontaneously combust.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mule3006Elk]

Anyone go to the Turkey 101 lecture? He recommended a Turkey hunting book during the presentation but can't find the info.
Thanks in advance.

 

[zeroforhire]

Again there are 1 million plus hunting license holders in Texas...number one in the country. Their lack of public land percentage isn’t legislative, it’s the fact they where deeded well before they were a republic or state.

The BHA sheep mindset is crazy.

If you support public lands but are more multi use then more wilderness and National monument... you aren’t a hunter and don’t support public lands

If you don’t support a company that donates to BHA regardless of thier historical anti hunting policies ...you aren’t a hunter and don’t support public lands






It’s almost comical

Uh oh. Looks like I have to choose between being an alpinist (who wears patagonia) or a hunter. Well, this ruins my day.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk