BHA Supports an Eco-Terrorist to Head BLM

[Marbles]

Your only looking at salaries within and not the people they pay outside the org, they are a lobbiest org so all their funds go to mainly are people to lobby government, simple as that, it’s a funding mechanism for a few to make a living.

They would have to report paying an outside organization to lobby as lobbying expenses on their tax return, which they report $0. Also, non-profits are restricted in how much lobbying they can engage in without being stripped of non-profit status.

It is also very simple to pull up their tax return and give us exact amounts for what they spend on things. Simple as that.

Do you have a problem with all non-profits that pay employees? After all, that makes them a funding mechanism for a few to make a living. Personally, I decline to put value in your expression of Marxist ideology and hold that there is not an issue with people making a living so long as they are honest in how they go about it.

 

[String&stick]

So. . . Are we still glossing over all the other organizations that support this nomination so we can bash BHA? Or do we want to discuss that the vast majority of (universally agreed) quality organizations are supporting this move?

Or is everyone canceling their memberships to NWTF, wild sheep foundation, Boone and crocket, pope and young, and mule deer foundation? I mean if the hate is so strong over this nomination don't be a hypocrite, take your dollars from all of them! Or just start a thread saying you hate BHA and don't site this lady as your reasoning, because most major conservation organizations are backing her so they obviously see something positive.

 

[mtwarden]

^ now what would be the fun in that

is much easier (and fun) to simply gloss over

 

[Legend]

I worked directly for Stone Manning at one point on some very contentious Mining issues. I was impressed with her approach, intelligence, and decision making. I can say first hand she is not the tree hugger some outlets are making her out to be.

Bottom line she was the best boss I worked for in that agency. She has my vote.

Anyone else with a direct interaction that has an opinion?

 

[Chad E]

Come on guys let's not cherry pick our groups to hate. Who's starting the thread

WSF and Mule Deer Foundation Support an Eco-Terrorist to Head BLM

After that let's start the boycott of these outrageous groups

 

[Ten Bears]

I didn’t gloss over it. I emailed the two I belong to asking their rational on backing her nom. I’ll report back on what they say.

And to be clear I am pissed they are backing her. I am sure there has to be a qualified candidate without such a black eye on their resume. It’s not like this is a minor thing.

PS whataboutism is a poor excuse for anyone.

 

[Hoodie]

So. . . Are we still glossing over all the other organizations that support this nomination so we can bash BHA? Or do we want to discuss that the vast majority of (universally agreed) quality organizations are supporting this move?

Or is everyone canceling their memberships to NWTF, wild sheep foundation, Boone and crocket, pope and young, and mule deer foundation? I mean if the hate is so strong over this nomination don't be a hypocrite, take your dollars from all of them! Or just start a thread saying you hate BHA and don't site this lady as your reasoning, because most major conservation organizations are backing her so they obviously see something positive.

This is the most annoying thing about the regular BHA bash fests on here.

I try real hard not to be a pedantic moron (unsuccessfully a lot of the time), but it's been real tempting to just start counter threads when these things pop up.

"MDF backs eco-terrorist to head BLM."

"RMEF doesn't support predator hunting, has no opinion on California bear hunting ban."

I mean Jesus, the National Shooting Sports Foundation backed the lady. Are they a green decoy now?

 

[Ten Bears]

This is the most annoying thing about the regular BHA bash fests on here.

I try real hard not to be a pedantic moron (unsuccessfully a lot of the time), but it's been real tempting to just start counter threads when these things pop up.

"MDF backs eco-terrorist to head BLM."

"RMEF doesn't support predator hunting, has no opinion on California bear hunting ban."

I mean Jesus, the National Shooting Sports Foundation backed the lady. Are they a green decoy now?

Clearly BHA is just too controversial of a topic on here and has become political.

Any BHA post or mention of the group should go the way of the Meme threads and be deleted.

I mean look at what it’s done to you ? You nearly want to stoop to pedantic levels but refrain in doing so by mentioning it. It’s just tooooo offensive and the mods don’t need the headache. Right ?

 

[Hoodie]

I didn’t gloss over it. I emailed the two I belong to asking their rational on backing her nom. I’ll report back on what they say.

And to be clear I am pissed they are backing her. I am sure there has to be a qualified candidate without such a black eye on their resume. It’s not like this is a minor thing.

PS whataboutism is a poor excuse for anyone.

I have the same sticking point as you regarding other equally qualified candidates. There have to be a ton of females with comparable experience without ties to EarthFirst. Up in the PNW there's going to be a hell of a lot of people in formerly thriving, currently defunct mill towns that aren't going to be able to get past that.

I don't think this qualifies as "whataboutism" though. That's a shit ton of other organizations backing this woman. That's germane to this discussion.

Anyone who's willing to rant about BHA in this context and won't acknowledge any of the other orgs expressing their support is arguing in bad faith. Period. If they weren't they'd be expressing similar outrage across the board. No two ways about it.

 

[Hoodie]

Clearly BHA is just too controversial of a topic on here and has become political.

Any BHA post or mention of the group should go the way of the Meme threads and be deleted.

I mean look at what it’s done to you ? You nearly want to stoop to pedantic levels but refrain in doing so by mentioning it. It’s just tooooo offensive and the mods don’t need the headache. Right ?

It's not offensive. It is boring and repetitive. I'm not one of those dudes asking that this crap gets shut down. If an organization with a lot of hunter support is making a questionable move, I'd like to know about it.

There isn't any meat and potatoes here. If we were talking about the glaring problems with Tracy Stone-Manning, BHA wouldn't be getting mentioned any more frequently than any of the other organizations writing Joe Manchin to express their support.

It's pretty clear that the OP's main motivation for starting this thread wasn't to express genuine concern about Manning. It was to shit on BHA. I have a strong intuition he won't be cancelling his Mule Deer Foundation membership now that he's been made aware of their support for eco-terrorism. Which is good. Because they're a good organization.

This stuff really isn't too complicated.

 

[Ten Bears]

I have the same sticking point as you regarding other equally qualified candidates. There have to be a ton of females with comparable experience without ties to EarthFirst. Up in the PNW there's going to be a hell of a lot of people in formerly thriving, currently defunct mill towns that aren't going to be able to get past that.

I don't think this qualifies as "whataboutism" though. That's a shit ton of other organizations backing this woman. That's germane to this discussion.

Anyone who's willing to rant about BHA in this context and won't acknowledge any of the other orgs expressing their support is arguing in bad faith. Period. If they weren't they'd be expressing similar outrage across the board. No two ways about it.

Quick question that maybe you can answer as I don’t do the social stuff outside of this.

Did the other orgs put out statements backing this lady or were they lumped on this list ?

You should definitely make some posts about the other orgs backing her. I’ll bet people will be equally as pissed about as BHA. The difference is there won’t be the typical 10 diehard BHA folks going all crazy about it. And maybe if the same 10 BHA folks didn’t get all worked up every time their org does something skeptical I bet some of the bashing would subside.

 

[sneaky]

It's not offensive. It is boring and repetitive. I'm not one of those dudes asking that this crap gets shut down. If an organization with a lot of hunter support is making a questionable move, I'd like to know about it.

There isn't any meat and potatoes here. If we were talking about the glaring problems with Tracy Stone-Manning, BHA wouldn't be getting mentioned any more frequently than any of the other organizations writing Joe Manchin to express their support.

It's pretty clear that the OP's main motivation for starting this thread wasn't to express genuine concern about Manning. It was to shit on BHA. I have a strong intuition he won't be cancelling his Mule Deer Foundation membership now that he's been made aware of their support for eco-terrorism. Which is good. Because they're a good organization.

This stuff really isn't too complicated.

He's not a member of Mule Deer Foundation so he has nothing to worry about there. The org he does the most work with isn't on that list. A tiger doesn't change its stripes, and Stone- Manning was a piece of trash in 1989, and is still a piece of trash in 2021.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[Hoodie]

Quick question that maybe you can answer as I don’t do the social stuff outside of this.

Did the other orgs put out statements backing this lady or were they lumped on this list ?

You should definitely make some posts about the other orgs backing her. I’ll bet people will be equally as pissed about as BHA. The difference is there won’t be the typical 10 diehard BHA folks going all crazy about it. And maybe if the same 10 BHA folks didn’t get all worked up every time their org does something skeptical I bet some of the bashing would subside.

Quick googling shows Congressional Sportsmen and National Wildlife Federation made statements. I'm sure others did.

Are you seriously suggesting it's a coincidence that out of 36 organizations that signed that letter to Manchin, this thread happened to be about BHA? This is Rokslide.

If you had shown me that list of organizations and told me that someone was going to post a thread on Rokslide expressing their outrage at one of them, with no other information I would have literally bet you my house that it would be BHA.

This happens like twice a week man. Hence the same ten people showing up to make fun of it each time.

We don't even have to finish this now. We can just pick it up in Okhotnik's or Ntrlbrnhntr's BHA thread next week.

 

[Ten Bears]

Quick googling shows Congressional Sportsmen and National Wildlife Federation made statements. I'm sure others did.

Are you seriously suggesting it's a coincidence that out of 36 organizations that signed that letter to Manchin, this thread happened to be about BHA? This is Rokslide.

If you had shown me that list of organizations and told me that someone was going to post a thread on Rokslide expressing their outrage at one of them, with no other information I would have literally bet you my house that it would be BHA.

This happens like twice a week man. Hence the same ten people showing up to make fun of it each time.

We don't even have to finish this now. We can just pick it up in Okhotnik's or Ntrlbrnhntr's BHA thread next week. It's the same ten people on both sides.

What I am saying is there is only one way to find out. Start making threads about all the zany left wing stuff RMEF and like orgs do.

Maybe the reason BHA gets bashed all the time is that for every solid thing they do, they do something really suspect. It’s not coincidence at this point. Fighting the public land trapping ban in NM for me was worthy of reconsideration alone. But being so petty that they fought to take 1 tag in some units from non residents over a percentage point just kills that sentiment.

Any time they are mentioned the typical reply is what about so and so. It’s a deflection and they’ve had multiple moments to change that sentiment. Instead of saying look at them why not actually own it. Be who you are.
The fact is at this point it’s a left leaning lobbyist organization with suspect donors, suspect past head figures, and quite frankly a terrible national leader. People don’t trust the org, period.

So make your posts about how crummy and lefty all the other orgs are. Fight the good fight for BHA man.

 

[Hoodie]

He's not a member of Mule Deer Foundation so he has nothing to worry about there. The org he does the most work with isn't on that list. A tiger doesn't change its stripes, and Stone- Manning was a piece of trash in 1989, and is still a piece of trash in 2021.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Uh-oh. Is there anything I oughta know about MDF while we're here?

If the OP isn't a member they must be a green decoy.

I'm not making a point about Stone-Manning I'm making a point about cherry picking. We can keep beating this horse but it isn't gonna get any deader. Everyone on Rokslide has either been made aware that BHA is secretly a radical leftist organization or they don't care.

 

[Hoodie]

So make your posts about how crummy and lefty all the other orgs are. Fight the good fight for BHA man.

Those other organizations aren't crummy or lefty. That's the whole deal. They're good organizations. My point is that if we applied this level of scrutiny to every organization none of them would have any members.

You always bring up "Whataboutism." That's not what this is. This is pointing out the logical endpoint for what would happen if we took the OP seriously.

If not fighting against the NM trapping ban is a deal-breaker, I can't support RMEF.

If not acknowledging SB 252 in California is being anti-predator hunting, I can't support MDF.

If endorsing Stone-Manning means supporting eco-terrorism, I can't support BHA or half of the conservation orgs I've ever even heard of.

It gets real stupid, real quick.

 

[Southeast]

So. . . Are we still glossing over all the other organizations that support this nomination so we can bash BHA? Or do we want to discuss that the vast majority of (universally agreed) quality organizations are supporting this move?

Or is everyone canceling their memberships to NWTF, wild sheep foundation, Boone and crocket, pope and young, and mule deer foundation? I mean if the hate is so strong over this nomination don't be a hypocrite, take your dollars from all of them! Or just start a thread saying you hate BHA and don't site this lady as your reasoning, because most major conservation organizations are backing her so they obviously see something positive.

But BHA members drink those fancy beers on their sissy pint nights, listen to the liberal Meateater podcast, and wear funny hats. That makes a manly fella like me uncomfortable.

 

[Ten Bears]

Those other organizations aren't crummy or lefty. That's the whole deal. They're good organizations.

My point is that if we applied this level of scrutiny to every organization none of them would have any members.

You always bring up "Whataboutism." That's not what this is.

This is pointing out the logical endpoint for what would happen if we took the OP seriously. If it's a problem that BHA endorsed Stone-Manning then it's a problem if any organization did. If I considered that grounds for withdrawing support for an organization, I'd have to withdraw support for damn near all of them. That's the point.

If not fighting against the NM trapping ban is a deal-breaker, I can't support RMEF.

If not acknowledging SB 252 in California is being anti-predator hunting, I can't support MDF.

If endorsing Stone-Manning means supporting eco-terrorism, I can't support BHA or half of the conservation orgs I've ever even heard of.

It gets real stupid, real quick.

You are really caught up in the OP. I am talking about the org as a whole on here. Of course it’s impossible to be pleased with everything an org does. And it’s not so black and white for me personally. But at this point there is too many things they do that I don’t like, which is the reason they get beat up so much here. This forum is pretty reasonable overall, it should be concerning that so many dislike BHA.

It is whataboutism, constantly. Some of you BHA loyalists are great contributors on here but it’s a common thread. Also mixing up what orgs do and don’t do is a common thing.

Sidenote, just caught a giant bass while typing this. Close to 6lbs.

Long story short. They bring this on themselves and pooping on other orgs as a defense or diversion doesn’t help.

 

[mtwarden]

But BHA members drink those fancy beers on their sissy pint nights, listen to the liberal Meateater podcast, and wear funny hats. That makes a manly fella like me uncomfortable.

well there is at that

 

[tdhanses]

They would have to report paying an outside organization to lobby as lobbying expenses on their tax return, which they report $0. Also, non-profits are restricted in how much lobbying they can engage in without being stripped of non-profit status.

It is also very simple to pull up their tax return and give us exact amounts for what they spend on things. Simple as that.

Do you have a problem with all non-profits that pay employees? After all, that makes them a funding mechanism for a few to make a living. Personally, I decline to put value in your expression of Marxist ideology and hold that there is not an issue with people making a living so long as they are honest in how they go about it.

So what are they using funds for then? They don’t do habitat restoration on a large scale, mainly volunteer only, they don’t acquire land to open up access to land locked ground.

I have no problem at all with orgs doing only work that requires a payments only for salary or payment third parties, never said I did.

Personally in my view BHA is nothing but talking heads for public land, I wouldn’t expect them to take any stance on wildlife management like some do. But let’s not act like they are putting all their money into opening up public lands other then talking and their main spending could purely be in marketing to hunters to join their cause.

Maybe they are just a big go fund me situation, where they talk a good game to get people on board but what do they really do, what have they improved for public lands that wasn’t already there or that larger conservation orgs didn’t support?