BHA seems “all-in” with Biden

[Middleofnowhere]

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.

 

[Ucsdryder]

After hearing the kifarucast episode with those donkeys I knew they didn’t represent me as a hunter.

 

[deerhunt1988]

Was just debating whether to renew my membership or not. This thread will help with my decision. Continue forth!

 

[jmez]

It is simply another PAC hiding behind the guise of the outdoor industry.

 

[Middleofnowhere]

I have “life” memberships to several hunting orgs, I’m glad I never pulled the trigger for a BHA “life”. My current membership expires in January.

I’m on the board of a small wildlife conservation org and we never get political. The thing that sucks is our demographic is “older” and a lot of the guys don’t do the physical work of building and maintaining desert water sources. My BHA chapter has been great by letting me post projects and a lot of the younger BHA guys have come out and helped with the heavy lifting.

BHA has been good at marketing and recruitment where the other orgs seem to be in decline.

 

[Nickofthewoods]

Firstly, I'm not a BHA member and have never donated money to their organization and I'll try to answer your question in as neutral way as possible.

Could it be that BHA is more supportive of Biden because under the Obama/Biden Administration there were protections placed on over 500 million acres of Public Land while Trump Administration has removed (or tried to remove) protections for something like 30+ million acres of Public Land?

Again, I'm not picking political sides or even quoting sources or exact numbers on the above, I just seem to remember reading an article in Outside Magazine (not a subscriber, just picked one up while waiting at Discount Tire) (Not biased on tire companies either, I got GoodYears but only because they offered a rebate).

This is just my personal (Non Partisan) guess as to why you may get that vibe from a Public Land Conservation Group.

*Edited to reflect a more accurate number of acreage designated as National Monuments by Obama Admin.

 

[seldomseensmith]

Huh. I joined BHA because they WERE political organization. Thought that was the point.

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

 

[mmw194287]

Never once do I remember them offering anything positive on Trump’s people.

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.”

 

[204guy]

Those guys are still around? They sure aren't keeping their name in the headlines with all the good things they do.

 

[bsnedeker]

BHA is clearly an outdoors organization designed for democrats who like to hunt. I'm ok with that, but I won't be giving them my money since they don't represent my views very well.

For me the bottom line is if you look at the actual on-the-ground money and projects that BHA is involved in compared to a group like RMEF it just makes no sense to give my support to BHA. I realize that RMEF is WAY bigger than BHA but if you look at the percentage of their income that they put on the ground it's pretty telling.

 

[Rick M.]

How could anyone not be 'all in' for Biden at this point? He's our next president, lol.

Are they supposed to stick their head in the sand and continue pretending that Trump didn't lose the election?

Also, I'm with @bsnedeker, RMEF is a good outfit and gets my money as well.

 

[ODB]

Could it be that BHA is more supportive of Biden because under the Obama/Biden Administration there were protections placed on over 5 million acres of Public Land while Trump Administration has removed (or tried to remove) protections for something like 30+ million acres of Public Land?

Again, I'm not picking political sides or even quoting sources or exact numbers on the above, I just seem to remember reading an article in Outside Magazine (not a subscriber, just picked one up while waiting at Discount Tire) (Not biased on tire companies either, I got GoodYears but only because they offered a rebate).

This is just my personal (Non Partisan) guess as to why you may get that vibe from a Public Land Conservation Group.

Then why don’t they just call themselves the PLCG instead of Backcountry hunters and anglers?

If public lands are their primary focus, then don’t pretend to be something other than that.

 

[Deadfall]

Don't matter. Democracy been dead awhile now. Just noone realizes it yet.

 

[Str8shooter]

Conservation is inherently political and to whine about a conservation advocacy group "being political" is to misunderstand how conservation goals have always been advanced in this country. BHA works with both sides of the isle and yes even some organizations that are on the wrong side of some hunting related issues, and its a damn good thing they do. I would not give my money to an organization that just sits on the sideline every 4 to 8 years and who wont work with non-hunting groups. Its a matter of efficacy. The Trump agency picks relevant to public lands and environmental protections were largely atrocious swamp creatures...Pendley, Bernhardt, Zinke, Pruitt....and BHA uses their network/media/fundraising toolkits to pressure these agency heads/ entities to act as a bullwark against shitty ideas/policy/legislation. It may offend ones sense of partisanship, but you cant honestly look at BHAs work, or listen to Land Tawney and say they dont represent the mission of backcountry hunting and anglling. Even with the political rancor in this country, in an election year, BHA was successful and instumental in getting congress and this admin to pass the permanent reauthorization of LWCF.

 

[SirChooCH]

Here's my problem with BHA, they started the org saying they would be taking care of the politics for you so that you don't have to worry about it yourself. But they refuse to dive into any of the politics that matter. For instance here in MI in the spring they shut down any boating activities, all public shooting ranges, and campgrounds on state and federal lands due to COVID concerns. BHA would not say a word against it and claimed that isn't "backcountry hunting" so not part of their politics. Even though those are ways/places to enjoy public lands and waters...? More likely its because they wont go against a Dem governor

They also claimed to have a huge involvement with RMEF and the MI DNR buying more land for the elk herd, but when RMEF came out with their announcement they didn't recognize BHA at all because guess who actually ran the show? They just like to claim involvement in everyone's affairs to say they did something so keep paying them.

 

[ChromeKype]

Dropped my membership. YUGE public land guy, lol, but I still think snipping little babies apart with tin snips is wrong. I know, I know I’m so old fashioned.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Carpet Capital Shyster]

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

All you need to know about the partisan leanings of BHA is to look at the prior political activity of the founder. I’ll leave it at that.

 

[Vandy321]

Political party aside...let's not forget that BHA REFUSED to take a stance on the CO Wolf Reintroduction. If they truely supported hunters/conservation, I'd think they would have publicly opposed that initiative.

What's the over / under on page count before this gets locked? I'm gonna say 3.

 

[TomJoad]

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

 

[Nickofthewoods]

Then why don’t they just call themselves the PLCG instead of Backcountry hunters and anglers?

If public lands are their primary focus, then don’t pretend to be something other than that.

I don't know that's a good question. I guess I always just thought that it was started and run by guys/gals that liked to hunt and fish. Let's say if I were really into orienteering and I wanted to start a Conservation Group to help protect public lands for my and other orienteering Enthusiasts' future use, I guess I might call it Backcountry Orienteering Group or something similar.

...Then I would hire a lawyer for when Backcountry.com sues me for using the word "Backcountry" in my new Conservation's name.