BHA seems “all-in” with Biden

[sndmn11]

For those of us in Colorado, what deterred me the most from joining BHA was their promoting David Peterson as the founder of the Colorado BHA chapter and vice chair for conservation at the national level. He was instrumental in the ban on spring bear hunting in Colorado. How is that advocating for hunters? I asked this same question when I was interested in supporting the BHA vets initiative (they highly tout Peterson’s veteran credentials) and received no response.
I’m a happy life member of RMEF. Would encourage anyone else to support orgs like RMEF.

Absolutely why I will never support any chapter, they promoted the current restrictions on bears, and the same crew promoted the wolf vote as well.

 

[greywacke]

Well, should be easy to figure out who placed the initial claims to said "access issue" and then determine where funding and everything came from that drove the final determination.

The NRA has done this forever, some legal group opens a lawsuit somewhere and does all the legal legwork, the NRA provides some sort of funding or whatever at some point in the case, the legal team wins and the NRA announces that they deteated the bad guy. Goes on everywhere which leads back to my previous comments on diving deep and doing your research.

In legal parlance, that called, "Joining in the suit" or "Filing an amicus curia brief", and it's not the sign of weakness or suspect character you seem to think it is...

And I'm not going to "dive deep" to prove your various assertions. Don't take this personally, but that's your dang job if you expect to badmouth BHA with any effect on target.

 

[def90]

In legal parlance, that called, "Joining in the suit" or "Filing an amicus curia brief", and it's not the sign of weakness or suspect character you seem to think it is...

And I'm not going to "dive deep" to prove your various assertions. Don't take this personally, but that's your dang job if you expect to badmouth BHA with any effect on target.

Someone else badmouthed, you asked how that could be, I just gave an explanation of how it happens. Why not quote and challenge the original guy that brought it up?

 

[Rhino]

The exact same thing can be said of any church in Colorado. Are you butthurt about them too? Have you posted it on the internet?

I don’t go to church in Colorado.. I also don’t give money to them. Just as you speak your opinion, so am I, based on what I’ve seen and heard. No need to get so upset.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[seldomseensmith]

"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government."

Ed Abbey

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

 

[greywacke]

Lobbying is not bribery. Lobbying requires that you have to pay some "consultant" that has access to both chambers of congress as well as individual members of congress, without this you will never get one on one time with anyone. That lobbyist is hired by other organizations as well so you are competi g once again for their time. Your lobbyist will work to get your meeting aranged with whomever it is that you wish to meet with. If your lobbyist is worth their money you will meet with that representative, if you are an unknown entity and your lobbyist sucks you might meet with an aide or something. Just the way it is, tbere are only so many hours in the day and they have to filter out who gets in and what causes are worth talking to..

What do churches have to do with anything in this thread?

As I pointed out earlier, every argument you make against BHA can be made against any church group - one of thousands competing for the ears of the Power(s).

So it's just a generic set of flawed complaints that can be made against almost any access group or really any organization devoted to doing something positive in DC. As such, and considering the scant evidence you provide for your position, I have a tough time buying your negativity about BHA, a bunch who did more to improve my access to public lands than the NRA and Sierra Club put together.

 

[Hoodie]

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.

You're probably right here, but the fact of the matter is that both sides pay lip service to those issues when it's convenient.

Wealthy conservative politicians whose only attachment to public land is fond memories of a childhood Yellowstone vacations spouting off about the value of BLM lands isn't any less nauseating than hearing Joe Biden wax poetic about his 20 gauge while promising not take your "AR-14."

Fact is, if all you know is that a given politician is pushing for the transfer of federal lands to state management, or the sale of state lands that aren't "profitable," it's really easy to guess their political affiliation. The same way
it would be easy to guess the political affiliation of a politician advocating strict gun control with no other information.

 

[def90]

"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government."

Ed Abbey

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

That's cool but there are probably way more effective groups than bha to invest in to fight those issues.

 

[black_bear]

Some people in this thread really drank the BHA Kool aid (I mean microbrew). Goes to show ya how well their marketing strategy works.

 

[def90]

You're probably right here, but the fact of the matter is that both sides pay lip service to those issues when it's convenient.

Wealthy conservatives whose only attachment to public land is fond memories of a childhood Yellowstone vacations spouting off about the value of BLM lands isn't any less nauseating than hearing Joe Biden wax poetic about his 20 gauge while promising not take your "AR-14."

Fact is, if all you know is that a given politician is pushing for the transfer of federal lands to state management, or the sale of state lands that aren't "profitable," it's really easy to guess their political affiliation. The same way
it would be easy to guess the political affiliation of a politician advocating strict gun control with no other information.

Can't disagree.. there is the guy in Utah though that was gung ho about selling off public land when Trump first went in to office, he was bitch slapped and changed his tune fairly quickly.

 

[def90]

As I pointed out earlier, every argument you make against BHA can be made against any church group - one of thousands competing for the ears of the Power(s).

So it's just a generic set of flawed complaints that can be made against almost any access group or really any organization devoted to doing something positive in DC. As such, and considering the scant evidence you provide for your position, I have a tough time buying your negativity about BHA, a bunch who did more to improve my access to public lands than the NRA and Sierra Club put together.

Churches operate on a local level and promote causes that can easily be achieved in the local community such as coat drives for the homeless and bake sales for the food shelf. Completely different set of circumstances and issues.

 

[MTSasquatch]

I’ve been a member for about 5+ years or so, seemed like a decent organization and values. I’ve been to a bunch of pint nights and made a couple friends from the group. I’ve volunteered and currently serve on a “habitat watch” committee.

During the Trump admin, BHA delved in to politics like i’ve never seen. They targeted Trump’s picks incessantly with negative articles and what I considered personal attacks. Biden has picked the new USDA chief and he is the old USDA chief that served under the Obama/Biden administration. This guy and his policies are largely responsible for the mismanagement of our western forests and loss of access and habitat for hunting.

BHA is “all-in” for this guy and it bugs the heck out of me. Never once do I remember them offering anything positive on Trump’s people. I think I am now truly done with the org and will never give another penny or let them use my membership for political clout.

View attachment 240849

I’ve only had negative experiences with BHA in Montana. As far as I can tell, they don’t accomplish much or very often for hunters in Montana when compared to RMEF or SCI. I cancelled my membership years ago and use those funds to donate to RMEF for work that actually happens on the ground.

 

[greywacke]

Someone else badmouthed, you asked how that could be, I just gave an explanation of how it happens. Why not quote and challenge the original guy that brought it up?

I quote whoever I'm replying to. Your arguments are generic enough.

 

[greywacke]

Churches operate on a local level and promote causes that can easily be achieved in the local community such as coat drives for the homeless and bake sales for the food shelf. Completely different set of circumstances and issues.

BHA does that. And educates non-hunters at brewpubs if some of us are to be trusted... Very similar competition in the marketplace of ideas. Gobs of churches, all needing my $$ and all offering me something positive.

By your lights, the biggest one is the only one we need.

It ain't like that, even in DC or Juneau or Denver. Buy an Alpacka, support backcountry hunter access.

 

[Bobbyboe]

It am makes sense now! Looking at you Buzz.

 

[Comerade]

I am a member here in B.C , it is one of the few options we have to to speak for crown/public land issues.
I am always cautious about any organizations real agenda, but what else is there? Even B&C seemed to have less to say about landbase/ wildlife/ hunting issues.
I have watched our valley being subdued by logging and mining interests. We have one wild drainage remaining and it is precious. The motorized vehicles proponents are well organized and funded also and they complain about access to it.
I am proud of our industry but we have got to keep their feet to the fire,imo
Organizations go rouge when membership is not involved enough.

 

[greywacke]

I’ve only had negative experiences with BHA in Montana.

That's so sad. And so nonspecific. And so easy to type.

As far as I can tell

It's just the same ol story - Sooner or later, some guy in a sasquatch suit comes by to shit on anything worthwhile.

 

[Zork]

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

“Only a sportsman can fully grasp the fundamental importance of the Agriculture Department to our nation’s proud traditions of conservation, public access and hunting and fishing,” said Tawney, “and in this instance we are fortunate to have a nominee for Agriculture secretary who is one of us – a hunter and outdoorsman who understands the weight of the responsibilities he will be asked to shoulder.

“We welcome the opportunity to work with Mr. Perdue as secretary of Agriculture,” he stated. “We will count on his leadership in working with hunters, anglers, landowners and other stakeholders to develop collaborative solutions to today’s complex conservation challenges and enhance public access programs, all while ensuring that the U.S. Forest Service is able to fulfill its mission and uphold a cherished American legacy in our public lands.”

It's funny how people can completely ignore something like this when it goes against their bandwagon arguments. But then again, when Q is the only source of truth...

 

[Zork]

Seems being pretty damn close to down the middle isn't enough anymore. Copied and pasted from BHA member survey (all found on the website):

• Political diversity: 28 percent of respondents are Independents, 23 percent are Republicans, 18 percent are Democrats, 6 percent are Libertarians and 1 percent are Green. (Twenty-three percent identify as “none of the above” or declined to answer the question.)

 

[greywacke]

For those of us in Colorado, what deterred me the most from joining BHA was their promoting David Peterson as the founder of the Colorado BHA chapter and vice chair for conservation at the national level. He was instrumental in the ban on spring bear hunting in Colorado. How is that advocating for hunters?

Sustainable harvest levels benefit all hunters. Science works. Greed isn't always good.