BHA Supporting Legislation Outlawing the Sale of Information on Big Game Locations

[Netherman]

Wont play when there is Federal Statute, case law, and the reaffirmed right for States to discriminate against NR hunters at will. The State of Wyoming could decide to not allow a NR to ever hunt here again, and there is no legal recourse for NR hunters.

I don't disagree that its 100% an outfitter subsidy and a terrible law, but it doesn't make the law any less binding or legal.

But, would be interested to hear you make your case based on Wyoming's right to hunt law.

I think the best angle would be to change the land designation (act of congress and a long shot) from wilderness to wilderness study. Can't keep non-resident hunters out of wilderness areas if you don't have any...

 

[chasewild]

Trojan horse ignores the basic fact that regardless of how you feel about the National BHA, it's the local chapters doing the work. And as this thread has made clear, the chapters are doing good work. I won't belabor that point, but if BHA is a trojan horse, then you are either saying that (1) the enemy within is the chapters; or (2) the members are the enemy within. Good luck with proving that, and make sure you take all your money out of banks and put it in a coffee can in your back yard.

 

[Woodrow F Call]

The structure of BHA is classic Eric Hoffer social mass-movement. You create an existential threat (loss of public access) , cleverly pitch it to a frustrated public (hunters who want to hunt on that land), ask for support ($$$), keep the rhetoric flowing, and watch the money roll in. You see, the “problem” can never be solved, but that serves the movement, the second the problem is solved, the movement ( and the support $$$), dies.

Examples of this type of movement are rife throughout history, left and right. They are predictable, identifiable, and knowable.

I don’t like social mass movements...

Kinda like losing 2A rights eh?

 

[Matt Cashell]

So they have funding from sources as easily questioned as BHA? And they support politicians who have dubious intents? And they hide this now, how?

BHA receives funding from sources concerned about wild land conservation and public access. Nobody in this thread or any other has provided any evidence that this money BHA has received has gone towards anything questionable. BHA uses money to gain new members, raise awareness, and advocate for their core values, as listed on the website. Of course, some of that money also goes directly to projects on the ground, youth activities, hunter recruitment, and even supporting litigation to open public access where it has been denied.

BHA Fights for Public Access in Montana's Crazy Mountains

BHA Fights for Public Access in Montana's Crazy Mountains

www.backcountryhunters.org

BHA doesn't support politicians, period. No BHA money has gone to any political candidate, "dubious" or not. That part of your statement is just false.

 

[Billinsd]

Trojan horse ignores the basic fact that regardless of how you feel about the National BHA, it's the local chapters doing the work. And as this thread has made clear, the chapters are doing good work. I won't belabor that point, but if BHA is a trojan horse, then you are either saying that (1) the enemy within is the chapters; or (2) the members are the enemy within. Good luck with proving that, and make sure you take all your money out of banks and put it in a coffee can in your back yard.

Others are saying they don't like/trust the national leadership/sponsors of BHA. Seems like "many" local chapters are doing good work, others no so much. Over the decades I've heard negative things about the RMEF by a few. If you take your money out of one bank you can put it in another or a credit union. You don't have to bury it your back yard. I was a member of Quail Unlimited for decades and our local chapter had nothing good to say about the National leadership. I believe they were corrupt and now we are Quail Forever. Our chapter thought real hard about leaving Quail Unlimited, but never did because they believed it wasn't quite beneficial enough to do so for the local chapter. Our Chapter didn't think National gave back much or supported us much. My daughter is a Girl Scout and my son will be a Boyscout without the "boy" in it anymore. These local chapters are good and are rather removed and isolated from their national leadership. I don't like giving money or support to the national leadership of either organization, however I feel at the local level my kids are getting great character building. If there was something comperable and more traditional and conservative I'd switch over, but there is not. Aren't there other organizations like BHA with local chapters that do good wor that aren't so controversial? Bill

 

[16Bore]

Doesnt public access to public land include the public that doesn’t hunt? Or is it only hunters and kick the mountain bikers by the wayside?

 

[Kootenay Hunter]

Doesnt public access to public land include the public that doesn’t hunt? Or is it only hunters and kick the mountain bikers by the wayside?

Not sure the intent of your comment, but BHA often works with other groups that also support public lands access, and there are members that neither hunt or fish, but like to preserve our access to public lands and wilderness.

And yes, we're definitely all just green decoys, I don't think any of us are even firearms owners. All the photos are staged for the 'gram. the public figures or 'moles' we have installed in the hunting industry are all staged for a major take down....just wait for 2020, aww crap, I've said too much now...


But in all seriousness, it's difficult to compare a well established org like RMEF to a new group that is growing like BHA. But as I'm sure you're all aware, you need the numbers and support to have a voice. A group, no matter how good you message is, will not be successful if you have a 1,000 members. When you have 50k, 80k, or 00k, now you start to have some pull. BHA has been focused on growth, and growth requires a lot of resources to promote.

 

[Rifleman86]

I’m not sure whose in charge of RMEF, but I’m pretty sure whoever it is didn’t write a public article endorsing Barack Obama like Land Tawney, the head of BHA did.

Either Land was woefully ignorant of who Obama was in 2008, or he knew and he didn’t care. Either way I won’t be a member of an organization he is in charge of.

 

[ODB]

BHA receives funding from sources concerned about wild land conservation and public access. Nobody in this thread or any other has provided any evidence that this money BHA has received has gone towards anything questionable. BHA uses money to gain new members, raise awareness, and advocate for their core values, as listed on the website. Of course, some of that money also goes directly to projects on the ground, youth activities, hunter recruitment, and even supporting litigation to open public access where it has been denied.

BHA Fights for Public Access in Montana's Crazy Mountains

BHA Fights for Public Access in Montana's Crazy Mountains

www.backcountryhunters.org

BHA doesn't support politicians, period. No BHA money has gone to any political candidate, "dubious" or not. That part of your statement is just false.

Bullshit. Did I say money? If you can’t tell which politicians BHA wants its supporters to vote for your’e being naive. That’s political speech, NOT issue speech. Post a goofy picture of Mitch McConnell?? Yep, I can tell which side of the aisle you’re on too...

 

[Matt Cashell]

Bullshit. Did I say money? If you can’t tell which politicians BHA wants its supporters to vote for your’e being naive. That’s political speech, NOT issue speech. Post a goofy picture of Mitch McConnell?? Yep, I can tell which side of the aisle you’re on too...

Yoiu did say money. Your first sentence mentioned their funding. Second sentence was about them supporting politicians. Was that not your intent? I don't know what Mitch McConnell pic your talking about. BHA has issued statements of support to politicians of BOTH parties when their vote supported a range of important issues including LWCF funding, land transfer, and others.

They have never funded OR endorsed any candidate.

 

[ODB]

Yoiu did say money. Your first sentence mentioned their funding. Second sentence was about them supporting politicians. Was that not your intent? I don't know what Mitch McConnell pic your talking about. BHA has issued statements of support to politicians of BOTH parties when their vote supported a range of important issues including LWCF funding, land transfer, and others.

They have never funded OR endorsed any candidate.

Nope. The comment was on BHA/RMEF RECEIVING funding from questionable sources, thereby influencing their policies. I chose my words carefully. Just browse BHA and Lands Instagram accounts, look for a politicians face, read the comment AND the responses and see what you think...

 

[Matt Cashell]

Which side of the aisle, again?

Thank you to Montana's delegation

Backcountry Hunters & Anglers is the voice for our wild public lands, waters and wildlife.

www.backcountryhunters.org

Btw, BHA had a seat at the table in congressional hearings on this. Good work by the national org.

 

[Matt Cashell]

, thereby influencing their policies.

Got any proof on this? Just conspiratorial speculation? Innuendo?

Instagram comments are policy now?

That’s a reach.

Edit to add:

I have been an RMEF member since I can remember having my own checkbook. I proudly support them and the great habitat and access work they are doing.

 

[CorbLand]

I’m not sure whose in charge of RMEF, but I’m pretty sure whoever it is didn’t write a public article endorsing Barack Obama like Land Tawney, the head of BHA did.

Either Land was woefully ignorant of who Obama was in 2008, or he knew and he didn’t care. Either way I won’t be a member of an organization he is in charge of.

Wait you mean a pro public land organization endorsed a president that did a fair amount to protect and preserve public lands?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Matt Cashell]

Found it

I am not seeing support of any candidate.

 

[ODB]

Got any proof on this? Just conspiratorial speculation? Innuendo?

Instagram comments are policy now?

That’s a reach.

Edit to add:

I have been an RMEF member since I can remember having my own checkbook. I proudly support them and the great habitat and access work they are doing.

A) Do people routinely give money to orgs with which they do not agree and do not have a vested interest in how that org spends their money?

B) A public comment by an organization or that organization’s leader (remember, they are a tax exempt org that has to play by different rules than you or I) is tantamount to political speech when it preferences one candidate over another. They skirt this too close in my opinion.

 

[ODB]

Found it

I am not seeing support of any candidate.

Negative political speech is still political speech.

 

[ODB]

Wait you mean a pro public land organization endorsed a president that did a fair amount to protect and preserve public lands?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He wasn’t president at the time, he was an unknown quantity.

 

[LandYacht]

Negative political speech is still political speech.

At first I thought you might have been onto something, but the more information that comes out on these two points leads me further away from your view point.

It seems to me there are some partisan politics playing with people’s emotions and they can’t put them aside.

Speaking of politics, I wish there was a single party that supported my views on public access and hunting on those public lands, along with the right to keep and carry all of my guns. It just doesn’t exist at this point in time, so I have to choose.

I see this as no different than choosing to support BHA, which I do. I also support the NRA and RMEF.

I guess I am a confused hipster doofus with guns that’s waiting to sneak into the walls of your city and steal your children. I will make sure not to wear a flat brim hat though because you will all see right through that disguise!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Billinsd]

But in all seriousness, it's difficult to compare a well established org like RMEF to a new group that is growing like BHA. But as I'm sure you're all aware, you need the numbers and support to have a voice. A group, no matter how good you message is, will not be successful if you have a 1,000 members. When you have 50k, 80k, or 00k, now you start to have some pull. BHA has been focused on growth, and growth requires a lot of resources to promote.

It's not difficult for me to compare the two groups. People have complained and left RMEF over the decades. They complain about the direction and priorities of RMEF and yes even that RMEF is not pro hunting enough. That's what I've read on the internet over the decades. I've heard disparaging things about Ducks Unlimited too. Southern California hunters don't think they do much here and others don't like seeing shows with the leadership going on great hunts or are paid too much. I can't think of any "hunting conservation organization" that is supported by people hostile to the 2nd Amendment or some forms of hunting. Is growing the BHA it's main priority or second priority? It seems like BHA will take anyone's money and anyone's support no matter how they stand on other issues. I know in my local Quail Forever chapter there was a super, super hardworking guy who worked and got work done like a hundred men. He was super anti development, like a Sierra Clubber. He worked tirelessly for conservation and anti development. The Construction Community hated him. He was not a hunter, because he had a gun accident as a kid and almost died. However, he was not anti 2nd Amendment or anti hunting, not one bit. He just did not hunt himself or use firearms. So, the club embraced him, even though he was anti development, which some of the members were not. I disagreed with his antidevelopment attitude, but had GREAT respect for him!!! Bill