BHA seems “all-in” with Biden

[NDGuy]

rclouse79 said:
I will have to remember that quote. Hilarious.

ElMuercielago said:
Democracy seems a bit silly in the first place honestly...Why should all the idiots out there have the same voting power as me? George Carlin had it right when he said, "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are even stupider than that."

Doesn't help much that everyone thinks they are in the upper half...actually probably the upper quarter...

 

[NoWiser]

This is not the argument people are making.

We are not upset because there is a PASSIVE attitude towards the 2nd amendment. We are upset that our money is going to a party that is ACTIVELY pushing against our rights.

The entire point here is that we all highly value public land access!

We do not value this to such an extant that we will give our money to an organization that supports the antithesis of our other values

Such as; the right to life, the 2nd amendment, free market capitalism, and now the 1st amendment!

We can hold these values dear and find another organization to fight for public lands.

As someone who fights for the lives of the not yet born I cringe to think that some of my donations went to a politician eager to see more babies in dumpsters.

Signing off


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was unaware that a 501c3 can donate to politicians. If you know of specific instances, the IRS would probably appreciate knowing about it.

 

[rclouse79]

The best part is that everyone thinks they are stupid and are blissfully ignorant to the fact.

Doesn't help much that everyone thinks they are in the upper half...actually probably the

People who are blissfully ignorant to the fact they are stupid are the most annoying.

 

[ChromeKype]

I was unaware that a 501c3 can donate to politicians. If you know of specific instances, the IRS would probably appreciate knowing about it.

Fixed it,

Semantics.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hoodie]

A couple of central Cascade wilderness areas that are getting loved to death out here in Oregon went to a permit entry system last year. BHA successfully lobbied for getting the requirement waived for hunters with controlled tags for the area, then further pushed for day access without a permit for people hunting the general archery season. They're working on getting overnight access for general archery hunters. That's worth my annual dues.

I wasn't aware that BHA had an official position on abortion or free market economics.

But that's because they probably don't.

I'm sure that some of these criticisms of the organization are completely valid.

That said, the fact is if you're a public land hunter in this country you better make peace with the fact that neither of the two major parties wholly represents your interests. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that conservatives don't have the best track record on public lands and that liberals aren't pro-2A.

Take a wild guess which side of the political aisle was pushing to sell State Forest lands in Oregon because they weren't "profitable"?

 

[ChromeKype]

A couple of central Cascade wilderness areas that are getting loved to death out here in Oregon went to a permit entry system last year. BHA successfully lobbied for getting the requirement waived for hunters with controlled tags for the area, then further pushed for day access without a permit for people hunting the general archery season. They're working on getting overnight access for general archery hunters. That's worth my annual dues.

I wasn't aware that BHA had an official position on abortion or free market economics.

But that's because they probably don't.

I'm sure that some of these criticisms of the organization are completely valid.

That said, the fact is if you're a public land hunter in this country you better make peace with the fact that neither of the two major parties wholly represents your interests. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that conservatives don't have the best track record on public lands and that liberals aren't pro-2A.

Take a wild guess which side of the political aisle was pushing to sell State Forest lands in Oregon because they weren't "profitable"?

Nobody said they have an “official position” on anything. Read much?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ODB]

I wasn't aware that BHA had an official position on abortion or free market economics.

But that's because they probably don't.

I'm sure that some of these criticisms of the organization are completely valid.

That said, the fact is if you're a public land hunter in this country you better make peace with the fact that neither of the two major parties wholly represents your interests. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that conservatives don't have the best track record on public lands and that liberals aren't pro-2A.

Take a wild guess which side of the political aisle was pushing to sell State Forest lands in Oregon because they weren't "profitable"?

If you think about it from the “gathering support” side it is much, much easier to gather support nationwide to preserve public lands than it is to gather support for actual hunting rights or guns. Meaning the cause that will require more work to garner support is the hunting/guns side. Retailers and other environmental groups are NOT standing up for hunting or guns. Which is why people who join a group called backcountry hunters and anglers off ten feel misled when the org does not aeem to actively and outwardly (other than the name) push the hunting or gun cause.

 

[greywacke]

A couple of central Cascade wilderness areas that are getting loved to death out here in Oregon went to a permit entry system last year. BHA successfully lobbied for getting the requirement waived for hunters with controlled tags for the area, then further pushed for day access without a permit for people hunting the general archery season. They're working on getting overnight access for general archery hunters. That's worth my annual dues.

I wasn't aware that BHA had an official position on abortion or free market economics.

But that's because they probably don't.

I'm sure that some of these criticisms of the organization are completely valid.

That said, the fact is if you're a public land hunter in this country you better make peace with the fact that neither of the two major parties wholly represents your interests. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that conservatives don't have the best track record on public lands and that liberals aren't pro-2A.

Take a wild guess which side of the political aisle was pushing to sell State Forest lands in Oregon because they weren't "profitable"?

Yep. I don't think hunters are or should be a monolithic tribe of theocrat culture warriors.
I have no wish to be painted with that brush by every Tom, Dick, and Vegan troll who has no clue.

BTW, my Alpacka Mule [designed with input from BHA] is just about the coolest piece of hunting access I ever paid $$ for.

 

[Hoodie]

If you think about it from the “gathering support” side it is much, much easier to gather support nationwide to preserve public lands than it is to gather support for actual hunting rights or guns. Meaning the cause that will require more work to garner support is the hunting/guns side. Retailers and other environmental groups are NOT standing up for hunting or guns. Which is why people who join a group called backcountry hunters and anglers off ten feel misled when the org does not aeem to actively and outwardly (other than the name) push the hunting or gun cause.

That's completely fair.

 

[ChromeKype]

Yep. I don't think hunters are or should be a monolithic tribe of theocrat culture warriors.
I have no wish to be painted with that brush by every Tom, Dick, and Vegan troll who has no clue.

BTW, my Alpacka Mule [designed with input from BHA] is just about the coolest piece of hunting access I ever paid $$ for.

theocrat culture warriors! Painting with a broad brush my man. I prefer the term libertarian. Maybe you’ve heard of that one?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MTtrout]

I could careless whether someone likes or supports BHA (Land Tawny) or not. But to say they don’t have hunters interest in mind is just laughable. They and their members HAVE been a strong voice in support of public lands and protection of cleaner air and water that comes with it, whether you like it our not. That’s not as easy to say about the current administration. Credit is given to Trump when it’s deserved (i.e., LWCF Permanent Funding Act and the Great American Outdoors Act). Although, his Administration already seems to be trying to undermine the later. I don’t give allegiance to either party but if BHA and other organizations find it easier to work with the new Administration in advancing further protect of public lands, then I’m all for it.

 

[greywacke]

theocrat culture warriors! Painting with a broad brush my man. I prefer the term libertarian. Maybe you’ve heard of that one?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'd put them out of my mind for a moment to think about our great American national heritage of Public Lands... but your witty emoji sure helped jangle things into proper perspective..

"Libertarians" who want to sell my public lands to the highest bidder in pursuit of a complete laissez faire America should probably restrict their hunting to their own lands and high fence game ranches of others, and BHA is probably not really chartered to represent them in the first place.

Upside is, they'll probably take your $$ and do good things for hunters with it. BHA, that is. Not libertarians.

 

[Hoodie]

Nobody said they have an “official position” on anything. Read much?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Let me try to clarify what I meant.

This is an organization that advocates for public lands. They are endorsing a candidate from a political party that is just objectively friendlier to that cause than the alternative choice.

I think it is a bit much to assume that they are doing it because they're trying to advance their "unofficial" agenda to achieve more abortions and instigate a communist coup.

Occam's razor: simplest explanation is usually right.

Maybe I'm just a sheeple, but it doesn't surprise me that public lands advocacy groups tend to back democrat politicians anymore than it surprises me that the NRA tends to support republicans. It would be weird if they didn't.

I'm not saying that plenty of the criticisms here aren't valid, or that it's a perfect organization or anything.

I'm saying two things:

1) Oregon's BHA chapter has done some good stuff that's protected access that I value.
2) There probably aren't meetings going on at BHA HQ where the chief topic of discussion is how to surreptitiously destroy traditional American values under the guise of caring about public lands.

 

[Okhotnik]

I've supported them in the past and will continue to support them in the future. No issues or concerns here.

BHA does a great job of primarily marketing to people who live in urban areas and like to fantasize about being a rugged backcountry outdoorsman and tend to anthropomorphize predators like wolves, cats and bears. I use to go to the BHA meetings at a local micro brew place when I lived near Seattle. People who live in urban areas seem rather naive and romanticize BHA while those who live out in wildlife habitat see the actual issues affecting herd numbers, access and are on the frontlines and know better and understand BHA does nothing for hunters. They do represent the anti gun, anti hunting public rather well though.


Sportsmen certainly have a right to be concerned about the Dems after the debate

 

[greywacke]

BHA does a great job of primarily marketing to people who live in urban areas and like to fantasize about being a rugged backcountry outdoorsman and tend to anthropomorphize predators like wolves, cats and bears. I use to go to the BHA meetings at a local micro brew place when I lived near Seattle. People who live in urban areas seem rather naive and romanticize BHA while those who live out in wildlife habitat see the actual issues affecting herd numbers, access and are on the frontlines and know better and understand BHA does nothing for hunters. They do represent the anti gun, anti hunting public rather well though.

I think you do a better job of generalizing "near Seattle" than you do dumping on BHA, but that's just my revealed opinion, which I declare sacrosanct and unquestionable, because it is.

PS: them soft-livin' granoler crunchin' REI types buy enough gear to keep REI and Patagonia in business, and the skinnier ones like trail running, skiing, and mountain climbing on public land too.

PPS: Skipped video. PPL in cities don't dig guns, in part because there's just so few safe ways to have fun with guns and alcohol in a big city. Culture warriors [theocrats and atheist Progressivists alike] use this as a wedge between urban Americans and rural Americans because it's so darn easy, even a caveman bloodsport typical slob hunter can exploit it to wage culture war for fun and tax-free contributions. Beto lost, btw. He don't represent Texas, or much else about now.

 

[Middleofnowhere]

This what BHA said about Trump's pick to head the USDA:

I missed that, that’s the only positive thing I’ve ever read out of BHA about anything the Trump admin has done.

 

[def90]

Yeah, their mission has expanded greatly since their beginnings as an public land access organization, which means that your money that could be spent on public land access is now being wasted competeing with a multitude of other conservation organizations. I dropped them this past year.

 

[greywacke]

Yeah, their mission has expanded greatly since their beginnings as an public land access organization, which means that your money that could be spent on public land access is now being wasted competeing with a multitude of other conservation organizations.

What are the mechanics of that "competition"? How does that happen?


Asking because sometimes it's too easy for a person to make a claim he can't back up.

 

[def90]

What are the mechanics of that "competition"? How does that happen?

There are already dozens if not hundreds of conservation based organizations out there, any spending on that issue by bha is a drop in the bucket of noise for that cause, leave it to heavy hitters like the nature conservancy and whatnot. They are competing for access to the powers that be and the fact is that there are a ton of conservation groups that have more to offer those people than bha does. That money could be used way more effectively towards their initial mission statement of opening up access to public lands.

As far as I can tell, rmef opened up more acres to hunters than bha did during the same time period.

 

[def90]

A couple of central Cascade wilderness areas that are getting loved to death out here in Oregon went to a permit entry system last year. BHA successfully lobbied for getting the requirement waived for hunters with controlled tags for the area, then further pushed for day access without a permit for people hunting the general archery season. They're working on getting overnight access for general archery hunters. That's worth my annual dues.

I wasn't aware that BHA had an official position on abortion or free market economics.

But that's because they probably don't.

I'm sure that some of these criticisms of the organization are completely valid.

That said, the fact is if you're a public land hunter in this country you better make peace with the fact that neither of the two major parties wholly represents your interests. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that conservatives don't have the best track record on public lands and that liberals aren't pro-2A.

Take a wild guess which side of the political aisle was pushing to sell State Forest lands in Oregon because they weren't "profitable"?

Except that I think it's a hell of a lot easier to persuade a politician to the pro public land side of the aisle than it is to persuade an anti 2a politiciam to the other side of the aisle.