BHA Supports an Eco-Terrorist to Head BLM

Status
Not open for further replies.

tdhanses

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2018
Messages
3,435
I know nothing about the reliability of this website, so take this with a grain of salt. Comparing BHA to RMEF, BHA spends a larger percentage on their mission, and less on administrative and fundraising.

Looks like once again other conservation orgs get a pass while everyone dogpiles on BHA.

View attachment 300223 View attachment 300224
You do realize all BHA is is a lobbiest group so the majority of their spend is on salaries/third parties to lobby Congress and state government officals, they do very little actual conservation/habitat restoration compared to RMEF etc. They are more the talkers and not really much for boots on ground, too small to do much for actual boots on ground initiatives on a scale like other orgs.

Hate to admit it but I’m a BHA life member but they won’t get another dime out of me. Land is a tool as are many of their state leadership, just my opinion. Doesn’t shock me they support a Biden pick so fast.
 
Last edited:

Okhotnik

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2018
Messages
1,669
Location
N ID
Can you share any information on Stone-Manning's conviction of being an eco-terrorist?

I'd be really interested in that article, court documents, etc.
lol. is there a bigger anti gun, anti hunting d bag than land towny. BHA keeps getting called out over and over and you have zero intelligent responses. No one is buying your lies buzz
 

HaydenLane

Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2020
Messages
83
Location
Nodak
You do realize all BHA is is a lobbiest group so the majority of their spend is on salaries/third parties to lobby Congress and state government officals, they do very little actual conservation/habitat restoration compared to RMEF etc. They are more the talkers and not really much for boots on ground, too small to do much for actual boots on ground initiatives on a scale like other orgs.

Hate to admit it but I’m a BHA life member but they won’t get another dime out of me. Land is a tool.
Did I ever imply otherwise?
 

tdhanses

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2018
Messages
3,435
Did I ever imply otherwise?
Nope just saying your comparison isn’t really a good one once you look at what they actually spend money on and understand where the money goes, BHA really spends 90% on people’s salaries, may not be employees, RMEF puts a ton into wildlife and restoring/opening up land, BHA puts a ton into windbags, both have a place but really BHA isn’t a hunters friend like they sell it.

These are just my views developed over time.
 
Last edited:

Okhotnik

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2018
Messages
1,669
Location
N ID
I'd just like to see the actual documents...don't trust the MSM or my elected officials.
Injuring middle class loggers trying to earn a living trying to feed their families is justifiable according to buzz. How many people out west cut their own firewood? How many eco terrorist ELF/BHA spikes are still in trees? lmao

Its ironic earth first got a good deal of forest management shut down in western forests and forest fires are now burning out of control and destroying western forests and wildlife and BHA supports this insanity. How could a person who cares for forests, wildlife and hunting ever support am anti hunting terrorist organization like earth first and the biggest fan BHA that destroyed our forests ?

pub night fan boys please chime in
 

Okhotnik

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2018
Messages
1,669
Location
N ID
You left out the part where she collaborated with the terrorists and received immunity for her testimony. The people you keep company with says alot about you.

As for BHA is it possible they didn't know? Thought I read somewhere she was supposed to disclose this info when nominated and she didn't. I'm going to start holding my breath waiting for bha to walk it back.
buzz has no understanding of our legal system it appears
 

HaydenLane

Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2020
Messages
83
Location
Nodak
Nope just saying your comparison isn’t really a good one once you look at what they actually spend money on and understand where the money goes, RMEF puts a ton into wildlife and opening up land, BHA puts a ton into windbags, both have a plac.
It’s a fair response to all of the claims that BHA only exists to make money for its execs. The mission is irrelevant, I’m simply pointing out the percentage of money going to the mission of the organization vs not.
 

Okhotnik

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2018
Messages
1,669
Location
N ID
What the hell difference does that make, I mean really? Name another organization that actively is working to protect and preserve public lands and waters across the country. Conservation and stewardship is not tied to a party is is determined by the character of the men and women that show and do the work to protect our resources. Hell will freeze brick shithouse solid before I ever vote for another democrat but I am very much a conservationist. If party affiliation means more to you than conservation, that is fine, just say so. But stop with the childish bullshit like this thread. Both parties are completely full of self centered and self righteous jack wagons. The lands we have left need watching over, I'll be seeing about that. Your welcome to help any time.
So you support anti hunting eco terrorist organizations now but you like to hunt too? interesting
 

Okhotnik

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2018
Messages
1,669
Location
N ID
Really not trying to start an argument but I try to be a pretty logical person.

Woman gets degree in environmental studies.
Woman is concerned about logging operations in national forest.
Woman was likely remotely involved in the spiking incident and testified AGAINST her roomates/friends with no charges filed against her.

I mean if you wanna call her a snitch I'll jump on board with that.

But it seems to me she's made a career out of caring for the environment and is likely qualified for the job. The problem lies that she leans toward preservation rather than industrialization. I can't say I have a huge problem with that. We all know there is a balance to be had and sides must be chosen so the GOP is going to back the funding. Big shocker.

I base the above on reading both articles you supplied and no other research was done.
Really not trying to start an argument but I try to be a pretty logical person.

Woman gets degree in environmental studies.
Woman is concerned about logging operations in national forest.
Woman was likely remotely involved in the spiking incident and testified AGAINST her roomates/friends with no charges filed against her.

I mean if you wanna call her a snitch I'll jump on board with that.

But it seems to me she's made a career out of caring for the environment and is likely qualified for the job. The problem lies that she leans toward preservation rather than industrialization. I can't say I have a huge problem with that. We all know there is a balance to be had and sides must be chosen so the GOP is going to back the funding. Big shocker.

I base the above on reading both articles you supplied and no other research was done.
if she was remotely involved she would not have a plea deal. If I set fire to your gas powered hunting vehicle at a trail head to stoop global to save the planet I must be a justified eco warrior too because of my good intentions.
 

Newtosavage

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
4,976
Location
In someone's favorite spot
I was a logger and worked in a mill (briefly) back then. You can't pass off the actions of anyone that was a member of Earth First as just some "opinions, perspectives". Those people, all of them, wanted to kill or at least badly hurt loggers and mill workers, destroy trucks and equipment so people lost their jobs, all in a sick effort to "save the trees". I saw a bumper sticker on a van that said " Trees, once they're gone, they are gone forever". Give me a break! As far as I'm concerned, anyone that held those beliefs is unfit for ANY public office, ever.
Well then they should have a good shot at being the next republican candidate for president if they are unfit for office. LOL
 

tdhanses

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2018
Messages
3,435
It’s a fair response to all of the claims that BHA only exists to make money for its execs. The mission is irrelevant, I’m simply pointing out the percentage of money going to the mission of the organization vs not.
Yeah but that’s it, their mission is paying people to talk and that doesn’t take much overhead vs a large org like RMEF that has 10x the employees and has fund raising in pretty much every state, that takes a lot of expenses but what they do with the money after these expenses is what matters. Truthfully their mission is to make their top brass money (lobbying) and third parties that lobby money, like I said, it’s a lobbiest org. It is far from a conservationist org.

Also if RMEF didn’t pay its executives a comparable rate to orgs their size they would be stuck with the Lands of the world running the org.
 
Last edited:

Marbles

Senior Member
Joined
May 16, 2020
Messages
1,159
Location
AK
Yeah but that’s it, their mission is paying people to talk and that doesn’t take much overhead vs a large org like RMEF that has 10x the employees and has fund raising in pretty much every state, that takes a lot of expenses but what they do with the money after these expenses is what matters. Truthfully their mission is to make their top brass money (lobbying) and third parties that lobby money, like I said, it’s a lobbiest org. It is far from a conservationist org.

Also if RMEF didn’t pay its executives a comparable rate to orgs their size they would be stuck with the Lands of the world running the org.

Just to make sure I understand. BHA pays two top executives a total of $238,000 (5.0% of revenue for that year) and they only exist to make money for there top executives. RMEF pays 11 executives a total of $1,829,295 (3.1% of revenue for that year) and that is proof that they are a good organization? Sounds like a double standard to me.

Here is some more data that can be cherry picked to support your position while sounding more consistent. Just take the percentages and ignore the actual values.

BHA employed a total of 43 individuals for an average cost of $50,738 each (about 47k if you subtract officers and directors).

RMEF employed 182 individuals at an average cost of $71,622 each (about 65k if you subtract officers and directors).

Now, RMEF certainly spends a much smaller percentage of its total revenue on salaries and compensation at 22.1% vs
46.3% for BHA.

Some of that percentage difference is economy of size as RMEF brings in about 10x the revenue of BHA. Whether or not you see value in what those employees do will determine if you see the organization as wasting money or not.

On an individual level RMEF makes its officers and directors richer than BHA does. But, if you view salaries as wasted money (I don't), than RMEF is clearly a better place to put your money as only 22¢ of every dollar you give goes to salaries vs 46¢ for BHA. However, you get fewer man hours with RMEF per dollar spent on salaries than with BHA (this is certainly true of officers and directors as their hours are listed, it may not be for other employees).

As far as lobbying, BHA has no reported lobbying expenses, while RMEF reported spending $100,000 on two lobbyist. Makes it hard to call BHA a lobbying organization. Though, as I see value in lobbying, I don't see RMEF's expenditure on it as a negative. I am curious what you think about it though given your earlier statement. I will admit, the above surprised me as I was under the impression that BHA was a lobbying organization before looking at the financials.

Of course financials don't mean squat if you disagree with an organization's mission. Disagreement should be enough in itself without having to distort the truth.

P.S. Both RMEF and BHA post their tax returns on their website, so anyone who wants to can dig into them.

Edited to strike through statements that where based on overly pedantic application of semantics.
 
Last edited:

Mike7

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2012
Messages
1,256
Location
Northern Idaho
Just to make sure I understand. BHA pays two top executives a total of $238,000 (5.0% of revenue for that year) and they only exist to make money for there top executives. RMEF pays 11 executives a total of $1,829,295 (3.1% of revenue for that year) and that is proof that they are a good organization? Sounds like a double standard to me.

Here is some more data that can be cherry picked to support your position while sounding more consistent. Just take the percentages and ignore the actual values.

BHA employed a total of 43 individuals for an average cost of $50,738 each (about 47k if you subtract officers and directors).

RMEF employed 182 individuals at an average cost of $71,622 each (about 65k if you subtract officers and directors).

Now, RMEF certainly spends a much smaller percentage of its total revenue on salaries and compensation at 22.1% vs
46.3% for BHA.

Some of that percentage difference is economy of size as RMEF brings in about 10x the revenue of BHA. Whether or not you see value in what those employees do will determine if you see the organization as wasting money or not.

On an individual level RMEF makes its officers and directors richer than BHA does. But, if you view salaries as wasted money (I don't), than RMEF is clearly a better place to put your money as only 22¢ of every dollar you give goes to salaries vs 46¢ for BHA. However, you get fewer man hours with RMEF per dollar spent on salaries than with BHA (this is certainly true of officers and directors as their hours are listed, it may not be for other employees).

As far as lobbying, BHA has no reported lobbying expenses, while RMEF reported spending $100,000 on two lobbyist. Makes it hard to call BHA a lobbying organization. Though, as I see value in lobbying, I don't see RMEF's expenditure on it as a negative. I am curious what you think about it though given your earlier statement. I will admit, the above surprised me as I was under the impression that BHA was a lobbying organization before looking at the financials.

Of course financials don't mean squat if you disagree with an organization's mission. Disagreement should be enough in itself without having to distort the truth.

P.S. Both RMEF and BHA post their tax returns on their website, so anyone who wants to can dig into them.
BHA may not pay a third party for lobbying, but I believe that I have listened to interviews by their staff previously, which describe them basically doing lobbying activities (which would likely then be classified then under salaries and legal in their budget, based upon their descriptions).
 

Pro953

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2016
Messages
426
Location
California
I like that some are fighting over getting folks rich in the same breath as discussing salaries of 47-65K. Hell even executive salaries under 200K is not exactly F-you kind of money.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Marbles

Senior Member
Joined
May 16, 2020
Messages
1,159
Location
AK
BHA may not pay a third party for lobbying, but I believe that I have listened to interviews by their staff previously, which describe them basically doing lobbying activities (which would likely then be classified then under salaries and legal in their budget, based upon their descriptions).
I think you have a decent argument, even if only applying the narrow legal definition of lobbying (vs advocacy). My point on lobbying was made too hastily and in hindsight in common parlance lobbying is used interchangeably with advocacy and it was needlessly pedantic for me to not just assume advocacy is the idea being expressed when the word lobbying is used in the context of this thread.
 

texans42

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2013
Messages
1,570
RMEF has done a good job opening lands; but as important as opening of lands, is insuring that’s what’s open, stays open and they have done very well with that charge.

I can’t speak to what they do in other states, but in Montana the BHA was easily the biggest watch dog on our last (and previous) legislative session. There were at least two dozen bills that threatened hunting as we know it (in Montana) and they were on the front lines opposing these bills and letting folks know when and where to send their thoughts on these bills. All were defeated (or seriously amended).

I’ll reserve judgment on this nominee for now; if she is as sinister as some think, then hopefully the process of vetting by the Senate works.

Is there room for improvement for this organization, almost certainly. But to dismiss the good work they’ve done (at least in Montana) is uninformed.
When BHA starts opening up large properties like Bosque Del Oso SWA etc, it will be relevant in an access and conservation discussion. As of right now they are not a conservation or access group.
 

tdhanses

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2018
Messages
3,435
Just to make sure I understand. BHA pays two top executives a total of $238,000 (5.0% of revenue for that year) and they only exist to make money for there top executives. RMEF pays 11 executives a total of $1,829,295 (3.1% of revenue for that year) and that is proof that they are a good organization? Sounds like a double standard to me.

Here is some more data that can be cherry picked to support your position while sounding more consistent. Just take the percentages and ignore the actual values.

BHA employed a total of 43 individuals for an average cost of $50,738 each (about 47k if you subtract officers and directors).

RMEF employed 182 individuals at an average cost of $71,622 each (about 65k if you subtract officers and directors).

Now, RMEF certainly spends a much smaller percentage of its total revenue on salaries and compensation at 22.1% vs
46.3% for BHA.

Some of that percentage difference is economy of size as RMEF brings in about 10x the revenue of BHA. Whether or not you see value in what those employees do will determine if you see the organization as wasting money or not.

On an individual level RMEF makes its officers and directors richer than BHA does. But, if you view salaries as wasted money (I don't), than RMEF is clearly a better place to put your money as only 22¢ of every dollar you give goes to salaries vs 46¢ for BHA. However, you get fewer man hours with RMEF per dollar spent on salaries than with BHA (this is certainly true of officers and directors as their hours are listed, it may not be for other employees).

As far as lobbying, BHA has no reported lobbying expenses, while RMEF reported spending $100,000 on two lobbyist. Makes it hard to call BHA a lobbying organization. Though, as I see value in lobbying, I don't see RMEF's expenditure on it as a negative. I am curious what you think about it though given your earlier statement. I will admit, the above surprised me as I was under the impression that BHA was a lobbying organization before looking at the financials.

Of course financials don't mean squat if you disagree with an organization's mission. Disagreement should be enough in itself without having to distort the truth.

P.S. Both RMEF and BHA post their tax returns on their website, so anyone who wants to can dig into them.

Edited to strike through statements that where based on overly pedantic application of semantics.
Your only looking at salaries within and not the people they pay outside the org, they are a lobbiest org so all their funds go to mainly are people to lobby government, simple as that, it’s a funding mechanism for a few to make a living.
 

tdhanses

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2018
Messages
3,435
I like that some are fighting over getting folks rich in the same breath as discussing salaries of 47-65K. Hell even executive salaries under 200K is not exactly F-you kind of money.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If they weren’t so small those executive salaries would be much higher but your correct I’m sure many here make more in their profession currently but they also are begging for donations to earn their salary.
 

Marble

Senior Member
Joined
May 29, 2019
Messages
1,486
if she was remotely involved she would not have a plea deal. If I set fire to your gas powered hunting vehicle at a trail head to stoop global to save the planet I must be a justified eco warrior too because of my good intentions.
This is not true at all. People get deals all the time that are just as guilty as others. They are just the first to the table. I've seen it first hand for over 20 years.

Her involvement in the crime and support of EF should be a huge clue as to what her motivations are. I doubt over the last 30 years her views on any of it has changed towards something reasonable, rather she's just learned other smarter methods to achieve what she always fought for.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top