Conservation Organization

[BuzzH]

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.

Again...intuitively obvious even to the most casual observer...go research who it is funding the smear campaigns.

Not tough to cipher.

 

[tdhanses]

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

I’m saying be politically neutral, doesn’t mean you don’t support one side for one issue or one sides issues only. Guess I haven’t researched BHA in awhile and I may be wrong but they sure seem to support the left side of politics more then anything when it’s political.

Supporting public access, etc or being against bans on cat and bear hunting are being politically neutral and following the issue, not the politican, yet when you look at the leadership of BHA they have been pretty vocal over time for left leaning politicans, maybe that is purely persona but their personal bias does follow them.

I’m not saying I’m right and I once supported the org but for me, it just isn’t worth it even if I’m wrong about the org, I’d prefer to give money to other orgs over it 100% of the time and my donations are not based on politics of the org.

 

[tdhanses]

I have a very strong feeling that your perception that top leadership is all left leaning is based exclusively on Land Tawney.

I don't know how to refute your claim because I have no idea where anyone would find a breakdown of general membership vs top leadership. But I can suggest that you don't have the information to make that claim.

Here's a question: Why would we expect a different percentage of Republicans at the top level vs. general membership? Do you have any reasons, or does it just make it sound more like some kind of conspiracy? What leads you to think that?

People say that all the time. "Well, the local chapters are great, but the folks at the top are sketchy." I have a funny feeling this is yet another hollow claim that people just echo because enough people have said it on here.

That is my personal view, right or wrong , it’s a view that has been established overtime and based on most threads about BHA, I’m not alone, right or wrong. It’s a perception issue BHA has.

Maybe you are right, but then you just pointed out the perception issue the org has, not sure how you fix it without a remake of the top or maybe you don’t or feel it doesn’t need a perception change but then again no org will convince everyone to be a member and provide their support.

 

[BuzzH]

I’m saying be politically neutral, doesn’t mean you don’t support one side for one issue or one sides issues only. Guess I haven’t researched BHA in awhile and I may be wrong but they sure seem to support the left side of politics more then anything when it’s political.

Supporting public access, etc or being against bans on cat and bear hunting are being politically neutral and following the issue, not the politican, yet when you look at the leadership of BHA they have been pretty vocal over time for left leaning politicans, maybe that is purely persona but their personal bias does follow them.

I’m not saying I’m right and I once supported the org but for me, it just isn’t worth it even if I’m wrong about the org, I’d prefer to give money to other orgs over it 100% of the time and my donations are not based on politics of the org.

Public land transfer, political plank of the R party. Legislators from one side of the aisle bringing up transfer bills in every western state.

How do you take a position against public land transfer and remain neutral?

You're opposing the political machine and party actively working to divest 340 million public land owners of their public lands.

Like I said you go nowhere in neutral.

 

[tdhanses]

The people who have an incentive to produce stuff like Green Decoys are generally people who stand to profit from things counter to environmental protection. There's an obvious profit motive for those people. There's also a strong profit motive for privatizing public lands. Hence the effort to smear organizations working to keep them public.

The best thing possible for people who would like to see federal public lands divested of would be to successfully convince a bunch of hunters (who are the only conservatives who have a reason to be especially pro-public lands), to avoid association with any organizations fighting to protect them because they're "too liberal." Even when the organization has more Republicans than Democrats.

But many groups use public lands, not just hunters. Also as the number of hunters decline with time then naturally you would think public land support would but I can guarantee you that isn’t true. Millions of people use public lands year round, hunters use it for a few months for the most part.

That’s a big assumption to think only hunters will keep public lands public or that other conservation orgs don’t support and fight for public land, last I checked BHA has only been around what 12 or 13 years, the issues in that time are no different then the issues have been for public land and access the 50+ years prior, yet public land has been around and not vastly shrunk.

 

[Hoodie]

Guess I haven’t researched BHA in awhile and I may be wrong but they sure seem to support the left side of politics more then anything when it’s political.

They are focused on public lands.

List of facts about public lands:
1) We fund them with taxes
2) They are mostly managed by the big, inefficient federal government
3) If they weren't public, lots of people could make lots of money from resources they contain

That's like a laundry list of shit conservatives don't like. BHA doesn't "support the left side of politics" in general. It just so happens that on this one issue, which is literally their whole deal, most of the threats come from one side. That's just the nature of the beast.

BHA isn't combating a bunch of threats to public lands from Democrats because there aren't any (that I'm aware of). Democrats are just fine funding big, inefficient public things that nobody profits off of with tax dollars. For lots of other issues that can be a problem. If you like federal public lands, you're of the opinion that at least in this case, it's not.

What you're suggesting is akin to suggesting the NRA be more open to universal background checks.

 

[tdhanses]

Public land transfer, political plank of the R party. Legislators from one side of the aisle bringing up transfer bills in every western state.

How do you take a position against public land transfer and remain neutral?

You're opposing the political machine and party actively working to divest 340 million public land owners of their public lands.

Like I said you go nowhere in neutral.

This has been going on since public land first started, how much has it shrunk in that time and BHA has only been a blip on the radar of time.

 

[tdhanses]

They are focused on public lands.

List of facts about public lands:
1) We fund them with taxes
2) They are mostly managed by the big, inefficient federal government
3) If they weren't public, lots of people could make lots of money from resources they contain

That's like a laundry list of shit conservatives don't like. BHA doesn't "support the left side of politics" in general. It just so happens that on this one issue, which is literally their whole deal, most of the threats come from one side. That's just the nature of the beast.

BHA isn't combating a bunch of threats to public lands from Democrats because there aren't any. Democrats are just fine funding big, inefficient public things that nobody profits off of with tax dollars. For lots of other issues that can be a problem. If you like federal public lands, you're of the opinion that at least in this case, it's not.

What you're suggesting is akin to suggesting the NRA be more open to universal background checks.

Yeah but that has been the fight since public lands were established, prior to BHA did we see a vast reduction in public because no org fought for them?

How many acres of public land has BHA opened up, RMEF is over 6 million new acres of public and public access over their time, they have also fought to keep lands away from developers in key habitat areas and restored habitat.

 

[tdhanses]

Would you use the same argument for gun control?

If people still have guns, why worry about it?

I wouldn’t support a new org that had plenty of red flags even if they are false no, I’d stick to tried and true orgs I’ve see plenty of results come from.

Yes I supported BHA at first, now I prefer to know where my money goes and to have transparency in the org I support, just my view.

 

[Hoodie]

Yeah but that has been the fight since public lands were established, prior to BHA did we see a vast reduction in public because no org fought for them?

Holy shit.

People did fight for them. It was a huge thing. Do you know much about the history of public lands in this country? We didn't see a vast reduction because people were fighting for them.

People have been fighting over them since they were conceived of. There's a lot of money in it,

 

[BuzzH]

This has been going on since public land first started, how much has it shrunk in that time and BHA has only been a blip on the radar of time.

Stay on point...that wasn't the question you asked. You asked why groups and individuals can't stay politically neutral. Apparently you don't like the facts on why that is.

 

[tdhanses]

Holy shit.

People did fight for them. It was a huge thing. Do you know much about the history of public lands in this country? We didn't see a vast reduction because people were fighting for them.

People have been fighting over them since they were conceived of. Because there's a lot of money in it,

Exactly my point, public lands will be around even if BHA isn’t.

 

[tdhanses]

Stay on point...that wasn't the question you asked. You asked why groups and individuals can't stay politically neutral. Apparently you don't like the facts on why that is.

Sorry for the derail, yes why can’t they, maybe we have a different view of what that means. I think an org is only as good as it’s leadership at the top, just google Land and tell me he is unbiased politically. Yes he isn’t BHA but really he is, he’s been the leader from the get go.

Maybe that is my personal beef with BHA, I’ve talked a few times face to face with Land and he just didn’t give me a good feeling, so I guess it’s just my personal view of him and his political stance and how he is more of a politician, which I get, BHA is more of a lobbyist org. Then add all the drama when the org is discussed and doesn’t give you that great feeling about supporting it.

I commend the volunteers and know BHA has done good things, I just feel other orgs do more for each dollar spent in the end.

 

[mlevimadden]

BHA and RMEF. I have been looking at joining WSF and RMGA as well.

 

[Hoodie]

I wouldn’t support a new org that had plenty of red flags even if they are false no, I’d stick to tried and true orgs I’ve see plenty of results come from.

The fact that you don't see what's wrong with paying attention to false red flags is a little concerning. I'm having trouble getting why it's a good idea to pay attention to false red flags.

To me this is like saying: "It's good to be misled."

 

[tdhanses]

The fact that you don't see what's wrong with paying attention to false red flags is a little concerning. Explain why it's a good idea to pay attention to false red flags.

To me this is like saying: "It's good to be misled. Don't be so quick to dismiss lies."

How do false red flags say anything about the organization? They're false. What does people spreading misinformation about BHA say about BHA?

Follow-up question: What does people spreading misinformation about BHA say about them? What does it say about the sources they got the MIS-information from?

Basically you're living proof that misinformation campaigns are a great idea. They work even when people know they're misinformation campaigns.

Not really, it’s one nonprofit out of many, I find it easier to just stay with the tried and true vs splitting to the new, I started to but it didn’t sit well with me in the end so I stopped support of it, simple as that. RMEF has been my main org for many years and then SCI, do I really need to support them all, no, did I give BHA a try, yes.

Do I feel BHA makes a large difference, no, not nearly what RMEF and SCI do. Just my personal thoughts.

I also don’t feel we need to support every new org that pops up, for gun control the NRA has done more then any new small org would be able to, even with all it’s bs.

 

[Hoodie]

Not really, it’s one nonprofit out of many, I find it easier to just stay with the tried and true vs splitting to the new, I started to but it didn’t sit well with me in the end so I stopped support of it, simple as that. RMEF has been my main org for many years and then SCI, do I really need to support them all, no, did I give BHA a try, yes.

Do I feel BHA makes a large difference, no, not nearly what RMEF and SCI do.

RMEF is great. I'm a member. But they don't have the same mission as BHA, so it's apples to oranges.


I'm breaking my rule about not arguing with people over vague statements that can't be easily refuted. Here's what we've established in this thread:

1) BHA is engaged with predator hunting/trapping issues.

2) BHA did not liquidate their assets, empty their bank accounts (including the offshore ones), and donate it all to some Senator's campaign (until Dos Perros comes back and proves otherwise)

Anything else, people can think about for themselves. Critically or otherwise.

 

[Gutshotem]

RMEF is great. I'm a member. But they don't have the same mission as BHA, so it's apples to oranges.


I'm breaking my rule about not arguing with people over vague statements that can't be easily refuted. Here's what we've established in this thread:

1) BHA is engaged with predator hunting/trapping issues.

2) BHA did not liquidate their assets, empty their bank accounts (including the offshore ones), and donate it all to some Senator's campaign (until Dos Perros comes back and proves otherwise)

Anything else, people can think about for themselves. Critically or otherwise.

3) BHA lobbied for the development of wind mills in the backcountry

 

[Hoodie]

But many groups use public lands, not just hunters. Also as the number of hunters decline with time then naturally you would think public land support would but I can guarantee you that isn’t true. Millions of people use public lands year round, hunters use it for a few months for the most part.

That’s a big assumption to think only hunters will keep public lands public.

One last thing.

What you just said here is exactly why it is important for hunters to be involved. The vast majority of recreational mountain bikers, hikers, backpackers, etc. who aren't hunters are liberals. Hunters are almost certainly the biggest group of conservative supporters of federal public lands. They're the only ones with a real dog in that fight.

If they get lazy in that support, or take it for granted, then there's no political pressure on conservative politicians to stay in line. Which means the next time the pendulum of political power swings to the right, there's much less resistance.

It wouldn't matter if all the granolas in the country complained if they didn't have the political sway to do anything. Having conservative allies on that issue is hugely important.

Same goes for gun rights and liberals. If you don't wanna see sweeping gun legislation passed, it's a good idea not to alienate people who agree with you on that issue. Even if you disagree with them on healthcare or any number of other things.

It's bad strategy.

 

[Gutshotem]

Hoodie, why did you delete your last post?