BHA Rendezvous

[cuerro viejo]

Like giving money to the NRA? Because they regularly support anti public land candidates, who by extension should be considered antihunting? Tell me again about your black and white voices?

What divergent tangent are you on now? Show me where the NRA has given money to STOP hunting AND take TAGS away from hunting.

 

[cuerro viejo]

What’s mind blowing is how overly simplistic you are. People, hunters, nonhunters....all of us don’t just fit into the very narrow little cubical of your mind. In fact I come to the conclusion that the over simplicity is in this case insurmountable. Enjoy the close quarters.

Lol, Says the guy calling wild buffalos tame.

Like I said go support Patagonia, proven history of being anti-hunting. Congrats to them, their small donations just bought your suckered heart.

And I stand by what I said BHA should remove hunters out of thier name, they are for sale, hunting is not.

 

[Matt Cashell]

What divergent tangent are you on now? Show me where the NRA has given money to STOP hunting AND take TAGS away from hunting.

See this is way oversimplified.

Until recently, Symantec was a business partner with the NRA. Symantec CEO John W Thompson at the time was active with Ducks Unlimited. He also had this political activity (From his Wiki page):

"Thompson was a strong supporter of Barack Obama's campaign during the 2008 election cycle.[10] In January 2009, news sources reported that President-elect Obama was considering Thompson to fill the Secretary of Commerce post in the Obama administration.[11][12][13] Ultimately, Senator Judd Gregg was chosen for the post[14] but withdrew his name on February 12. Thompson again remained a potential candidate until the successful appointment of Gary Locke.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi appointed Thompson to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission in 2009."

Is the NRA somehow responsible for that?

Things aren't black and white.

 

[cuerro viejo]

See this is way oversimplified.

Until recently, Symantec was a business partner with the NRA. Symantec CEO John W Thompson at the time was active with Ducks Unlimited. He also had this political activity (From his Wiki page):

"Thompson was a strong supporter of Barack Obama's campaign during the 2008 election cycle.[10] In January 2009, news sources reported that President-elect Obama was considering Thompson to fill the Secretary of Commerce post in the Obama administration.[11][12][13] Ultimately, Senator Judd Gregg was chosen for the post[14] but withdrew his name on February 12. Thompson again remained a potential candidate until the successful appointment of Gary Locke.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi appointed Thompson to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission in 2009."

Is the NRA somehow responsible for that?

Things aren't black and white.

Did Symantec as a company via corporate policy push for taking tags away or stopping hunting? It is that blk and white. John Thompson left Symantec in 09.

 

[PNWTO]

Things aren't black and white.

I don't think you are getting through due to the same hardheadedness that has caused so many impasses in the world today. Some folks earnestly want to have black and white as it lessens the burden on their mental capacity and responsibilities.

If you can't get out of the trenches to shake hands on middle ground then both sides will keep losing. Education and learning to navigate nuance is what bring progress, not single-issue stubbornness.

 

[dotman]

What divergent tangent are you on now? Show me where the NRA has given money to STOP hunting AND take TAGS away from hunting.

Well any western politician that wants to sell public lands, NRA has given plenty to them. Come out into the light man, it really isn’t as dangerous as you believe.

 

[dotman]

Lol, Says the guy calling wild buffalos tame.

Like I said go support Patagonia, proven history of being anti-hunting. Congrats to them, their small donations just bought your suckered heart.

And I stand by what I said BHA should remove hunters out of thier name, they are for sale, hunting is not.

Quick question, not saying I’m in support of buying tags up and not using them as it effects wildlife management but have you ever been around Yellowstone or Bison? Because you seem to portray they are like deer, elk, wolves, bear etc in their fear of humans.

 

[Billinsd]

I welcome them to fight alongside me for public lands regardless of their politics on other issues.

You are a one issue guy on this issue. That's where our disagreement is. You are entitled to your opinion. What others of us are saying is that they may not welocome Patagonia.
It does matter greatly what their opinion or lack of opinion is on other issues to some. I will not welome them if they support organizations against hunting and/or the Second Amendment. If they don't make a statement for or against huntung and/or the Second Amendment I won't hold it against them. That's just me, though.

 

[Billinsd]

Well any western politician that wants to sell public lands, NRA has given plenty to them. Come out into the light man, it really isn’t as dangerous as you believe.

You got a good point. However, you sound like a one issue guy too. I'm more complicated. I care much, much or about having the privalege to hunt and the 2nd Amendment, much more than the public land issue. Of course if there is no public land I basically won't be able to hunt. However, I don't believe that's where the Conservatives are headed, not at all. I could be wrong, but that's my opinion.

 

[BuzzH]

Some great comments by some on here that I strongly agree with.

If we're going to keep the public lands around that we have, increase support of hunting by the non-hunters, and improve access, we aren't going to do that by being isolationists.

It will take a unified voice, its going to take consensus.

All too often I've seen issues like this where the hard-liners refuse to see anything other than black and white. Drawing lines and everyone retreating to the comfort of their own bunker isn't going to work, and frankly never has worked.

I see an opportunity to educate each side on points of view and work toward a common goal, our public lands and access to same. That's good enough for me, I wont change every mind, I wont change mine on many issue either. But, if we improve the image of hunting, angling, trapping, through a shared goal of keeping public lands, access, and habitat viable into the future with groups that may not align perfectly...so be it.

Rather than slap away the olive branch that has been extended by each of these organizations, I say embrace it and see what happens.

 

[orionthehunter1]

Here is a fun little snippet I found researching BHA. Their accounting also seems a little suspect about in line with SFW.

"Most prominent is BHA executive director Land Tawney, who ran the liberal political action committee (PAC) calling itself the “Montana Hunters and Anglers Leadership Fund” (MHA). In 2012, this pop-up PAC spent $1.1 million against Republican U.S. Senate candidate Denny Rehberg, who was challenging Democratic U.S. Sen. Jon Tester. The liberal MHA also spent $500,000 in support of the libertarian candidate as a strategy of drawing votes away from the Republican. MHA received several hundred thousand dollars from the League of Conservation Voters, a liberal environmentalist group. Tawney is also a member of the Montana Sportsmen for Obama Committee and previously served as the National Grassroots Coordinator for the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, which, like BHA, is an environmentalist front that poses as a hunter and fisher group."

 

[dotman]

You got a good point. However, you sound like a one issue guy too. I'm more complicated. I care much, much or about having the privalege to hunt and the 2nd Amendment, much more than the public land issue. Of course if there is no public land I basically won't be able to hunt. However, I don't believe that's where the Conservatives are headed, not at all. I could be wrong, but that's my opinion.

So how are we 1 issue people? I’m a life member of both the BHA and NRA. I’m just not as close minded as some and realize not one group will cover all issues or be perfect.

 

[dotman]

Here is a fun little snippet I found researching BHA. Their accounting also seems a little suspect about in line with SFW.

"Most prominent is BHA executive director Land Tawney, who ran the liberal political action committee (PAC) calling itself the “Montana Hunters and Anglers Leadership Fund” (MHA). In 2012, this pop-up PAC spent $1.1 million against Republican U.S. Senate candidate Denny Rehberg, who was challenging Democratic U.S. Sen. Jon Tester. The liberal MHA also spent $500,000 in support of the libertarian candidate as a strategy of drawing votes away from the Republican. MHA received several hundred thousand dollars from the League of Conservation Voters, a liberal environmentalist group. Tawney is also a member of the Montana Sportsmen for Obama Committee and previously served as the National Grassroots Coordinator for the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, which, like BHA, is an environmentalist front that poses as a hunter and fisher group."

You can’t use that over and over around here you know, people aren’t going to fall for it. It’s ok if you have an axe to grind with BHA but don’t make BHA threads become the new Kuiu threads. We get you aren’t a fan.

 

[PNWTO]

Here is a fun little snippet I found researching BHA. Their accounting also seems a little suspect about in line with SFW.

"Most prominent is BHA executive director Land Tawney..."

If that is from "Green Decoys" or whatnot it can be dismissed as a series of cherry-picked smears. Green Decoy is controlled by a notorious dirtbag and petroleum lobbyist.


Good conservationists and great leaders don't have to be part of your political party...

 

[Trial153]

Here is a fun little snippet I found researching BHA. Their accounting also seems a little suspect about in line with SFW.

"Most prominent is BHA executive director Land Tawney, who ran the liberal political action committee (PAC) calling itself the “Montana Hunters and Anglers Leadership Fund” (MHA). In 2012, this pop-up PAC spent $1.1 million against Republican U.S. Senate candidate Denny Rehberg, who was challenging Democratic U.S. Sen. Jon Tester. The liberal MHA also spent $500,000 in support of the libertarian candidate as a strategy of drawing votes away from the Republican. MHA received several hundred thousand dollars from the League of Conservation Voters, a liberal environmentalist group. Tawney is also a member of the Montana Sportsmen for Obama Committee and previously served as the National Grassroots Coordinator for the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, which, like BHA, is an environmentalist front that poses as a hunter and fisher group."

The green decoys Propaganda site is the best you can come up with? what you found is a phony website set up by a lobbyist.
if you had any Aspirations of being a private investigator dont quite your day job.

 

[BuzzH]

Here is a fun little snippet I found researching BHA. Their accounting also seems a little suspect about in line with SFW.

"Most prominent is BHA executive director Land Tawney, who ran the liberal political action committee (PAC) calling itself the “Montana Hunters and Anglers Leadership Fund” (MHA). In 2012, this pop-up PAC spent $1.1 million against Republican U.S. Senate candidate Denny Rehberg, who was challenging Democratic U.S. Sen. Jon Tester. The liberal MHA also spent $500,000 in support of the libertarian candidate as a strategy of drawing votes away from the Republican. MHA received several hundred thousand dollars from the League of Conservation Voters, a liberal environmentalist group. Tawney is also a member of the Montana Sportsmen for Obama Committee and previously served as the National Grassroots Coordinator for the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, which, like BHA, is an environmentalist front that poses as a hunter and fisher group."

Do you know anything about Denny Rehberg? I do...and he needed to be sent packing. No friend of Sportsmen, at all.

I say Land did an outstanding job...

 

[cuerro viejo]

Quick question, not saying I’m in support of buying tags up and not using them as it effects wildlife management but have you ever been around Yellowstone or Bison? Because you seem to portray they are like deer, elk, wolves, bear etc in their fear of humans.

Been to Yellowstone. I’ve owned and worked bison, even had a horse crippled by one.

I’ve killed 20 antelope and none took more then hour? Does that make antelope tame?

Ive taken kids on cow elk hunts, where elk set there and watch us get out of the truck walk down 200 yards of fence and then watch us set up, and then run a hundred yards after first shot. Does that make them tame?

So basically what you are saying is you think animals that don’t sprint to Canada when they see a human are tame and it’s unethical to shot and eat them. That’s what Patagonia is saying.

The are over 5000 bison in Yellowstone, heck of a generalization by the way.

 

[orionthehunter1]

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.

 

[BuzzH]

Will Coggin? Really? That's your source...do some research.

 

[PNWTO]

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




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.”

Will Coggin and crew are shitbirds as well. No doubt that BHA was in the wrong, but it is fairly common to see young non-profits with skeleton crews and large memberships have some issues with attention to detail. At the risk of sounding like an apologist I doubt it was nefarious. NRA, RMEF, and the AARP all have IRS violations on their records.

It seems you have a point to drive home and are no longer interested is discussion. I hope this thread is locked and individuals like you fade from influence at a faster rate.