BHA Supports an Eco-Terrorist to Head BLM

[brocksw]

If someone has same methodology as BHA, American Woodcock Society, Archery Trade Association, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Bear Trust International, Boone and Crockett Club, Camp Fire Club of America, Catch-A-Dream Foundation, Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, Conservation Force, Council to Advance Hunting and the Shooting Sports, Dallas Safari Club, Delta Waterfowl, Ducks Unlimited, Houston Safari Club, Izaak Walton League of America, Masters of Foxhounds Association, Mule Deer Foundation, National Bobwhite Conservation Initiative, National Deer Association, National Shooting Sports Foundation, National Wild Turkey Federation, National Wildlife Federation, North American Falconers Association, North American Grouse Partnership, Orion: The Hunter’s Institute, Pheasants Forever, Pope & Young Club, Quail Forever, Ruffed Grouse Society, Texas Wildlife Association, The Conservation Fund, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, Wildlife Forever, Wildlife Management Institute, and Wild Sheep Foundation as in no ranching, no minerals, no timber, no access, then she is perfect candidate for that.

FIFY

 

[Dos Perros]

@brocksw with the strawman, again.

I guess I would have to ask if any of those orgs care if gas is $7/gal or if you can't source common household items because the world demand outstrips supply? Does it matter if we can't go hunting because either 1) there are no animals, or 2) we can't afford to drive to our hunting spot? Which is better?

 

[Dos Perros]

Is that a serious question?

It is a serious statement.

 

[cuerro viejo]

FIFY

Might want to check a few of those since NWTF is on of the largest proponents of multi use since they are one of the largest logging proponents... in the US.

I see a bunch other conflicts. As in the majority....

Lol

 

[brocksw]

Might want to check a few of those since NWTF is on of the largest proponents of multi use since they are one of the largest logging proponents.

I see a bunch other conflicts.

Lol

I just copy and pasted from the letter they all signed man. Look for yourself.

https://congressionalsportsmen.org/uploads/home/AWCP_Support_of_Tracy_Stone-Manning.pdf

 

[brocksw]

@brocksw with the strawman, again.

I guess I would have to ask if any of those orgs care if gas is $7/gal or if you can't source common household items because the world demand outstrips supply? Does it matter if we can't go hunting because either 1) there are no animals, or 2) we can't afford to drive to our hunting spot? Which is better?

How is that a strawman argument?

Also, could you provide more specifics on the $7 gas comments, I'm not sure what you're getting at there and would like some clarification. I haven't seen anything that says Stone-Manning will halt all oil development leading to higher prices (unless I'm missing something). Truthfully, I'm not really sure halting all oil development on BLM land would affect prices that much but I haven't seen the economics. OPEC has the largest influece on global oil prices and its not really that close in terms of that influence. They account for like half of the oil production in the world and have like 75% of the reserves. They change their production by a couple percentage points and that has rippling effect on oil prices for the entire world. But again, I'm not sure if that's what you meant.

It is a serious statement.

Well I mean I think I see where you're going with your question then. But, it seems kind of illogical doesnt it? I mean there are lots and lots and lots of projects done by all conservation groups. Many of them are lead by an individual who is spearheading that project or effort. But, if you start playing this game where you hypothetically eliminate that one person and the work they did, and then turnaround and say "see if they weren't there, then that project wouldn't have even been done, so that means this organization is sham". That just doesn't make sense. All of these organizations owe a debt of gratitude to volunteers and dedicated members for much of the work that's done.

I mean, I'm sure RMEF, MDF, WSF have all had individuals who were real warriors in terms of leading projects and getting things done, especially in their earlier formative years. They probably even have an award for some of those people. But, If you remove that person and or that project, that doesn't mean those orgs are now worthless. Somebody else might have stepped in. Somebody else might have found a different project. Its just the natural progression of things.

 

[Schaaf]

I'm not calling into question any effort on your behalf, FWIW. I'm calling into the question the hypothetical scenario of what would have happened absent your effort.

Then you really don't know how the situation played out.

One week before the Land Board meeting, I had a call with the landowners and the biologist. I had been pushing them to go on the offensive in trying to drum up support for the project. Up until this point, the MT Land Board had never shot down a conservation easement that guarantees public access and hunting. The swing vote on the land board, Matt Rosendale, was longtime buddy's with the neighbor to the west of this easement as well as a resident of this county for 20 years. The neighbor, also a State Senator, has deep connections with the political powers across the state and was outspoken in his opposition at the public meetings held in the area.

By the end of the call I had convinced the family and FWP that the 2 year project was dead unless something was done. I wrote this piece and it ran the Thursday before the meeting Keeping a Way of LIfe, it ran online and in every local paper the weekend before the vote. The Friday before the vote I walked door to door in the community and attended a sportsman's banquet where I gathered hundreds of physical signatures supporting the easement.

Over the weekend the Land Board received over 1,000 emails of support for the easement and rumblings out of Helena that because of the pressure the Land Board was going to delay the easement until the uproar would quiet down. That Tuesday, I traveled to Helena and testified in front of the Governor and Land Board about why this 20k acres was so needed in Eastern Montana and presented the 467 signatures to the Land Board. By the end of the meeting the Land Board voted 3-2 to indefinitely delay the easement with no date set on when to approach it again.

6 months later, the easement was pushed through by the Governor and was upheld in front of the Montana Supreme Court within the year.

The easement would have died on a 3-2 vote on February 20, 2018 if not for BHA. Is that enough to answer your hypothetical scenario?

 

[NDGuy]

The easement would have died on a 3-2 vote on February 20, 2018 if not for BHA. Is that enough to answer your hypothetical scenario?

Idk Schaaf sounds like a bunch of LIBURL mumbo jumbo to me

 

[Dos Perros]

Then you really don't know how the situation played out.

One week before the Land Board meeting, I had a call with the landowners and the biologist. I had been pushing them to go on the offensive in trying to drum up support for the project. Up until this point, the MT Land Board had never shot down a conservation easement that guarantees public access and hunting. The swing vote on the land board, Matt Rosendale, was longtime buddy's with the neighbor to the west of this easement as well as a resident of this county for 20 years. The neighbor, also a State Senator, has deep connections with the political powers across the state and was outspoken in his opposition at the public meetings held in the area.

By the end of the call I had convinced the family and FWP that the 2 year project was dead unless something was done. I wrote this piece and it ran the Thursday before the meeting Keeping a Way of LIfe, it ran online and in every local paper the weekend before the vote. The Friday before the vote I walked door to door in the community and attended a sportsman's banquet where I gathered hundreds of physical signatures supporting the easement.

Over the weekend the Land Board received over 1,000 emails of support for the easement and rumblings out of Helena that because of the pressure the Land Board was going to delay the easement until the uproar would quiet down. That Tuesday, I traveled to Helena and testified in front of the Governor and Land Board about why this 20k acres was so needed in Eastern Montana and presented the 467 signatures to the Land Board. By the end of the meeting the Land Board voted 3-2 to indefinitely delay the easement with no date set on when to approach it again.

6 months later, the easement was pushed through by the Governor and was upheld in front of the Montana Supreme Court within the year.

The easement would have died on a 3-2 vote on February 20, 2018 if not for BHA. Is that enough to answer your hypothetical scenario?

Listen, again I'm not calling into question your effort.

You're essentially asserting that had you not done this no one else would have. To me, this sounds like you're the hero, not BHA, and you would have done the same on behalf of RMEF or TRCP or even just your good family name.

 

[Dos Perros]

How is that a strawman argument?

Also, could you provide more specifics on the $7 gas comments, I'm not sure what you're getting at there and would like some clarification. I haven't seen anything that says Stone-Manning will halt all oil development leading to higher prices (unless I'm missing something). Truthfully, I'm not really sure halting all oil development on BLM land would affect prices that much but I haven't seen the economics. OPEC has the largest influece on global oil prices and its not really that close in terms of that influence. They account for like half of the oil production in the world and have like 75% of the reserves. They change their production by a couple percentage points and that has rippling effect on oil prices for the entire world. But again, I'm not sure if that's what you meant.

Well I mean I think I see where you're going with your question then. But, it seems kind of illogical doesnt it? I mean there are lots and lots and lots of projects done by all conservation groups. Many of them are lead by an individual who is spearheading that project or effort. But, if you start playing this game where you hypothetically eliminate that one person and the work they did, and then turnaround and say "see if they weren't there, then that project wouldn't have even been done, so that means this organization is sham". That just doesn't make sense. All of these organizations owe a debt of gratitude to volunteers and dedicated members for much of the work that's done.

I mean, I'm sure RMEF, MDF, WSF have all had individuals who were real warriors in terms of leading projects and getting things done, especially in their earlier formative years. They probably even have an award for some of those people. But, If you remove that person and or that project, that doesn't mean those orgs are now worthless. Somebody else might have stepped in. Somebody else might have found a different project. Its just the natural progression of things.

It's a strawman because you're extrapolating one comment in an if-this-then-that way and saying someone said something they didn't.

I personally believe BHA has some good chapters and many many good members. I think their genesis is a fraud (or the movement has been co-opted, one or the other), I think Land Tawney is a fraud, and I think the central organization is a sham. I'm flexible on the last point if I could see a financial statement that actually told me what they spent money on. Their financial statements are obfuscations, at least to my eyes.

 

[brocksw]

It's a strawman because you're extrapolating one comment in an if-this-then-that way and saying someone said something they didn't.

I personally believe BHA has some good chapters and many many good members. I think their genesis is a fraud (or the movement has been co-opted, one or the other), I think Land Tawney is a fraud, and I think the central organization is a sham. I'm flexible on the last point if I could see a financial statement that actually told me what they spent money on. Their financial statements are obfuscations, at least to my eyes.

Yeah I dunno man, I think you're reaching there if you consider context and how the "FIFY" comes in...I did provide a link to the source. But we'll move on.

I know Land. I talk to him once in a while. The dude is uber passionate about being outside hunting and fishing and spending his life devoted to that cause. He's literally on the job damn near 24/7. I've called him up on a sunday afternoon and he spent an hour on the phone with me, while he was trying to do shit with his kids, just making sure we were good to go. You can disagree with his politics or whatever you want... sure, but to call the guy a fraud? That's kinda shitty man and just plain old not true. He's a good dude, a dad, a husband, a guy who shows up every day for his friends and family, his volunteers, and the mission. So to call the whole organization a sham, I mean really? 40,000+ members, full staff, volunteers who work their butts off daily for the same things that you and I both care about....but it's all just a sham? A sham to what?

I get how these hyper-partisan times can fuel some really bad info. I get how that same hyper-partisanship can really lead to some strong feelings on both sides of the aisle. I get how it's tough to see through some of the BS. I get how seeing nothing but the extremes on each side plastered all over the news and social media can warp a guys perception. But, at the end of the day we're all people doing the best we can. It's one thing to disagree, but to basically call other people's hard work a big sham...a fraud. I mean shit man, that takes some real mental gymnastics and I feel bad for you if that's the lens you're putting to everything. That's a real cynical outlook on life and I hope you can get past that.

 

[Schaaf]

Listen, again I'm not calling into question your effort.

You're essentially asserting that had you not done this no one else would have. To me, this sounds like you're the hero, not BHA, and you would have done the same on behalf of RMEF or TRCP or even just your good family name.

So basically if something good that is done I was acting behalf on my self and not the organization I represent. If it’s bad, then it’s a direct line to the organization and f**k BHA. Got it.

 

[Dos Perros]

Yeah I dunno man, I think you're reaching there if you consider context and how the "FIFY" comes in...I did provide a link to the source. But we'll move on.

I know Land. I talk to him once in a while. The dude is uber passionate about being outside hunting and fishing and spending his life devoted to that cause. He's literally on the job damn near 24/7. I've called him up on a sunday afternoon and he spent an hour on the phone with me just making sure we were good to go. You can disagree with his politics or whatever you want... sure, but to call the guy a fraud? That's kinda shitty man and just plain old not true. He's a good dude, a dad, a husband, a guy who shows up every day for his friends and family, his volunteers, and the mission. So to call the whole organization a sham, I mean really? 40,000+ members, full staff, volunteers who work their butts off daily for the same things that you and I both care about....but it's all just a sham? A sham to what?

I get how these hyper-partisan times can fuel some really bad info. I get how that same hyper-partisanship can really lead to some strong feelings on both sides of the aisle. I get how it's tough to see through some of the BS. I get how seeing nothing but the extremes on each side plastered all over the news and social media can warp a guys perception. But, at the end of the day we're all people doing the best we can. It's one thing to disagree, but to basically call other people's hard work a big sham...a fraud. I mean shit man, that takes some real mental gymnastics and I feel bad for you if that's the lens you're putting to everything. That's a real cynical outlook on life and I hope you can get past that.

I appreciate your willingness to have a dialogue, but I'm just not sure you're following along. Now you're putting words in my mouth. I never said all 40k members yada yada were a sham. I literally said "I personally believe BHA has some good chapters and many many good members." I limited my criticism to Land and the central organization, who is way more of a PAC/lobbying group than a "conservation organization." I stand by my criticisms.

If we can't criticize, how can a good thing become great?

 

[brocksw]

I appreciate your willingness to have a dialogue, but I'm just not sure you're following along. Now you're putting words in my mouth. I never said all 40k members yada yada were a sham. I literally said "I personally believe BHA has some good chapters and many many good members." I limited my criticism to Land and the central organization, who is way more of a PAC/lobbying group than a "conservation organization." I stand by my criticisms.

If we can't criticize, how can a good thing become great?

We could certainly be on different wavelengths here. But to me, an NGO that puts in tens of thousands of volunteer hours per year, has a full time staff dedicated to that same mission, calling any part of that organization a sham or a fraud is a direct attack on all those people. I'm just not sure how anyone could see it any other way. I know the people that are staff and aren't volunteers. There's some good people there man. I work with some of the policy people quite frequently. Julia, John, Tim...They're good folks who work there ass off for the mission and they know their stuff. I'm proud to work with them...straight up.

Some of the stuff that goes on in this forum when it comes to BHA. It's not criticism...constructive or otherwise. Name calling, insulting, bashing, conspiracy theories, it's kinda pathetic actually.

 

[CorbLand]

My only criticism of BHA is...they opened a chapter at the University I attended a couple years ago. I went to their meeting and signed up on the list to be contacted with volunteer opportunities...and have never heard a word from them in two years.

 

[WRO]

We could certainly be on different wavelengths here. But to me, an NGO that puts in tens of thousands of volunteer hours per year, has a full time staff dedicated to that same mission, calling any part of that organization a sham or a fraud is a direct attack on all those people. I'm just not sure how anyone could see it any other way. I know the people that are staff and aren't volunteers. There's some good people there man. I work with some of the policy people quite frequently. Julia, John, Tim...They're good folks who work there ass off for the mission and they know their stuff. I'm proud to work with them...straight up.

Peta does the same shit, just saying.

BHA is ran by bunch of leftist greenie ***** that tell a nice story, but in truth they're the fly-fishermen of the hunting world..

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[brocksw]

My only criticism of BHA is...they opened a chapter at the University I attended a couple years ago. I went to their meeting and signed up on the list to be contacted with volunteer opportunities...and have never heard a word from them in two years.

Thats frustrating man but it's happened to a couple chapters. Shit just gets lost in the shuffle and volunteers screw up sometimes. Message me man. I will personally see to it that we right that mistake and get you the info you need.

 

[brocksw]

Peta does the same shit, just saying.

BHA is ran by bunch of leftist greenie ***** that tell a nice story, but in truth they're the fly-fishermen of the hunting world..

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Nah man. We're good people.

 

[WRO]

Nah man. We're good people.

The fact is the organization is ran by leftist and funded by groups that aren't hunting friendly.

Good people or not, doesn't change the money sources or background.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[brocksw]

The fact is the organization is ran by leftist and funded by groups that aren't hunting friendly.

Good people or not, doesn't change the money sources or background.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

So your takeaway is that democrats don't hunt and aren't hunting friendly?