Conservation Organization

[tdhanses]

You see why this fits what I'm saying, right?

Also, if they did what you're suggesting, wouldn't they lose independents and liberals for the same reason? i.e. "conservatives are...uh...sketchy. I can't put my finger on it, or explain why, but I just don't trust them." Especially given that the point of the organization is the protection of public lands. Most of which are an expensive thing that we fund via taxation and that the big, inefficient federal government manages.

That's like a laundry list of shit conservatives generally don't like.

TL/DR: Of courser an organization focused on combating threats to public lands has some Democrats/Independent members.

In other news, the NRA has many Republican members. Pro-gun communists don't trust them, but they're not sure why...They just find them "sketchy."

I don’t think they would, why even be political? Be neutral and move the mission forward, working with all.

 

[BuzzH]

Oh I agree but why are these claims made to start with, maybe that’s the question your not asking yourself and maybe then look at how can the org change it’s image so that it isn’t constantly on the defense by members and that it’s mission is the focus, not always defending it but making it easy to stand up for it as a good quality org worth peoples donations.

I also think there is a diverse political base against BHA as a conservation org.

Maybe I’m wrong but a restructure year could do wonders for the orgs perception if done correctly.

Claims are made because of simply not looking at the facts, rumors, and outright lies...as has been the case in every discussion about BHA, including this one.

There's also the fact that the local chapters are incredibly effective, and that threatens not only those that want to say, turn federal lands into private lands, but also those that would profit from same.

There are lots of very smart and talented volunteers that make up the State boards who aren't afraid of tackling issues that other orgs simply WILL NOT take on, for a variety of reasons. That effectiveness is a threat to many, and the response is typically to lash out and distract. It works too, you're a classic example of that. Even when its pointed out what the various Chapters have done, you don't want to believe it.

Even this latest corner crossing case in Wyoming, we're not receiving help from any other orgs on this, not a single one. Yet, we have attorneys reaching out providing pro-bono support, have thousands of folks signing our petition, and thousands of others have contributed their $$$ to support the 4 hunters who are taking this issue on. Listen to Newberg's latest podcast about corner crossing and tell me BHA is on the wrong side of this issue. The WY board has handled this perfectly, raised a ton of awareness on an issue that other orgs won't touch.

The first ones through the wall on these types of issues will always get bloodied, just the way it is. We'll have detractors, take heat from the well-heeled, and also take heat from within the ranks. But, for the record, who else is willing to take on an issue that would open up 1.6 million acres of public access via corner crossing? There may be some out there, but they haven't stepped up yet, we'll see what happens down the road.

 

[tdhanses]

I want people from diverse political perspectives to agree that public lands are important. It is a good thing.

That's what's so stupid about all this. If you like something, you should want as many people as possible to like it. The NRA shouldn't care if it has pro-gun anarcho-communist members. So long as they believe in the 2nd Amendment.

I'd rather people learn to work for a common cause with people with whom they might not agree on literally every single issue, than establish some sort of weird rule that all members of an organization must be ideologically uniform.

That's how you end up in a circle jerk.

So why not make leadership diverse then or remove all perceived political bias at the top?

 

[tdhanses]

Claims are made because of simply not looking at the facts, rumors, and outright lies...as has been the case in every discussion about BHA, including this one.

There's also the fact that the local chapters are incredibly effective, and that threatens not only those that want to say, turn federal lands into private lands, but also those that would profit from same.

There are lots of very smart and talented volunteers that make up the State boards who aren't afraid of tackling issues that other orgs simply WILL NOT take on, for a variety of reasons. That effectiveness is a threat to many, and the response is typically to lash out and distract. It works too, you're a classic example of that. Even when its pointed out what the various Chapters have done, you don't want to believe it.

Even this latest corner crossing case in Wyoming, we're not receiving help from any other orgs on this, not a single one. Yet, we have attorneys reaching out providing pro-bono support, have thousands of folks signing our petition, and thousands of others have contributed their $$$ to support the 4 hunters who are taking this issue on. Listen to Newberg's latest podcast about corner crossing and tell me BHA is on the wrong side of this issue. The WY board has handled this perfectly, raised a ton of awareness on an issue that other orgs won't touch.

The first ones through the wall on these types of issues will always get bloodied, just the way it is. We'll have detractors, take heat from the well-heeled, and also take heat from within the ranks. But, for the record, who else is willing to take on an issue that would open up 1.6 million acres of public access via corner crossing? There may be some out there, but they haven't stepped up yet, we'll see what happens down the road.

Oh I agree but why does BHA get these claims/drama so much more then any other org?

It detracts from the good they do and makes some just stay away from supporting them.

BHA needs a new image and I don’t see that happening with the current leadership in place that are on the payroll, not volunteers, the volunteers aren’t the image of BHA like they should be but the current leadership is a detractor.

 

[Btaylor]

Pretty much, it’s just harmed the org from growing overall, get rid of that and move the mission forward and you would see more people join but really that’s only if the org truly wants to expand and move it’s mission along quicker, if it’s happy where it’s at then no reason to change.

I would just like to point out one thing here. BHA both at the national level and at the state levels puts a lot of effort and energy into to policy issues. As administrations at all levels change depending on the election, having a politically diverse body should prove beneficial in advancing causes rather than the conservation body being hell bent on subscribing to only one political identity.

 

[tdhanses]

I would just like to point out one thing here. BHA both at the national level and at the state levels puts a lot of effort and energy into to policy issues. As administrations at all levels change depending on the election, having a politically diverse body should prove beneficial in advancing causes rather than the conservation body being hell bent on subscribing to only one political identity.

I agree but BHA isn’t diverse at the top, it is very left leaning, membership in the states is diverse.

If BHA had a diverse leadership at the top and didn’t lean one way heavily, it would benefit them.

 

[Hoodie]

Oh I agree but why are these claims made to start with

Political bias. That's what I'm saying. Bias is when you make a claim that isn't factual because it supports some narrative you buy into. If a claim can be substantiated, it's not bias. It's a fact. The problem with these claims is that they're horseshit. If they weren't horseshit, I wouldn't bother arguing with them. I'd stop paying my BHA dues.

Also, If someone makes a bullshit claim, then disappears when they're asked to back it up, who cares why they made it? If the claim is bullshit, it's bullshit.

We don't need to ask: "But why are all these people (who can't back up any of their claims) saying this stuff in the first place? Doesn't that say something about the organization?"

No. It doesn't. That's the whole thing. It says something about them.

 

[Hoodie]

I agree but BHA isn’t diverse at the top, it is very left leaning, membership in the states is diverse.

Back this up. Let's see some numbers.

 

[BuzzH]

I don’t think they would, why even be political? Be neutral and move the mission forward, working with all.

Fantasyland...in 2022, the world of public access, wildlife, conservation, and hunting is 100% political. Its the facts of the world we operate in and you either get with the program or you get rolled.

How do you propose a group not "get political" when politics directly try to pass legislation to divest 340 million Americans from the land we all own?

How do we get anything done via State Legislation to support habitat, the GF Departments, or get things done through the politically appointed GF Commissions? Everything is political.

There is not choice but to be political, those pushing against things we support as hunters, fishermen, trappers, hikers, etc. use the political tools they have.

What you're proposing is we should not use the political system that is our only option...sorry friend, but I'm not showing up to a tank battle with a sling shot.

What's threatening those that have used the political against us for years, is they don't like it when we start using that same system. Tough, they better get used to it, its not 1980 anymore and Sportsmen are not behind the curve anymore.

 

[Hoodie]

I would just like to point out one thing here. BHA both at the national level and at the state levels puts a lot of effort and energy into to policy issues. As administrations at all levels change depending on the election, having a politically diverse body should prove beneficial in advancing causes rather than the conservation body being hell bent on subscribing to only one political identity.

You sir, get it.

 

[tdhanses]

Back this up. Let's see some numbers.

Backup that the top leadership on payroll is diverse.

 

[BuzzH]

Oh I agree but why does BHA get these claims/drama so much more then any other org?

It detracts from the good they do and makes some just stay away from supporting them.

BHA needs a new image and I don’t see that happening with the current leadership in place that are on the payroll, not volunteers, the volunteers aren’t the image of BHA like they should be but the current leadership is a detractor.

I just told you why, because we take on issues others won't and that scares those that think only they matter. When you shake things up, those in control go bat-chit crazy, it threatens how they've done business, it threatens what they want.

 

[tdhanses]

Fantasyland...in 2022, the world of public access, wildlife, conservation, and hunting is 100% political. Its the facts of the world we operate in and you either get with the program or you get rolled.

How do you propose a group not "get political" when politics directly try to pass legislation to divest 340 million Americans from the land we all own?

How do we get anything done via State Legislation to support habitat, the GF Departments, or get things done through the politically appointed GF Commissions? Everything is political.

There is not choice but to be political, those pushing against things we support as hunters, fishermen, trappers, hikers, etc. use the political tools they have.

What you're proposing is we should not use the political system that is our only option...sorry friend, but I'm not showing up to a tank battle with a sling shot.

What's threatening those that have used the political against us for years, is they don't like it when we start using that same system. Tough, they better get used to it, its not 1980 anymore and Sportsmen are not behind the curve anymore.

Why can’t an org stay neutral and support issues no matter the party?

 

[mtnbiker208]

RMEF; WSF

 

[tdhanses]

I just told you why, because we take on issues others won't and that scares those that think only they matter. When you shake things up, those in control go bat-chit crazy, it threatens how they've done business, it threatens what they want.

Who’s scared of BHA? PETA?

 

[BuzzH]

I would just like to point out one thing here. BHA both at the national level and at the state levels puts a lot of effort and energy into to policy issues. As administrations at all levels change depending on the election, having a politically diverse body should prove beneficial in advancing causes rather than the conservation body being hell bent on subscribing to only one political identity.

Give this person a cigar...there is room to maneuver and work with both sides of the aisle to benefit wildlife, access, and public lands. It's not either or.

 

[BuzzH]

Who’s scared of BHA? PETA?

When you see smear campaigns such as the BS green decoy stuff, etc...its more than intuitively obvious somebody is scared of something, wouldn't you agree?

 

[BuzzH]

Why can’t an org stay neutral and support issues no matter the party?

Supporting an issue absolutely means you're not neutral...you go nowhere in neutral last I checked.

 

[Phaseolus]

Who’s scared of BHA? PETA?

Why do they need to scare people in order to be effective?

 

[tdhanses]

When you see smear campaigns such as the BS green decoy stuff, etc...its more than intuitively obvious somebody is scared of something, wouldn't you agree?

So who is the who though, is it other conservation orgs? That’s my issue, I don’t see this stuff for any orgs other then BHA and the NRA.