Do your research before joining "sportsmens conservation" type groups...

[dotman]

Like Ryan,

I was on the fence with BHA and other groups.

However, I have come around. I think that as a sportsmen I have come to the realization that I can't march in lockstep with any particular political party or their "be like us" platform.

I have come to believe that one can be pro-gun and still work to preserve wild places. I believe one can be skeptical of the Federal Government and still see the benefit in federal management of public land.

I believe issues stand on their own, and as a hunter, I will make up my own mind on them individually, without anyone marginalizing my opinion by labeling me as something if I disagree with them on some issue.

Just because hunters and environmentalists may find agreement on one issue doesn't mean they agree on everything. In fact, seeing some issues similarly may well bring some of them around on other issues, like gun ownership and hunting. We have already seen that with the "hipster hunters" movement.

As such, I personally, have come to support BHA.

I'm right there with you, I'm a member of BHA and yes they are completely for keeping our backcountry from being developed by the energy companies and against adding more roads.

Not every org will meet all of our requirements but as long as the main ones are there then I'm good with them. BHA is pro hunting and fishing and keeping our wild lands wild.

I'm also a member of the NRA, SCI, WSF, DU and am chairman of the Greater Kansas City RMEF chapter. All of these orgs do great things for our rights and conservation, none of them are perfect but they are the orgs I respect and actually see results coming out of.

 

[MattB]

Like Ryan,

I was on the fence with BHA and other groups.

However, I have come around. I think that as a sportsmen I have come to the realization that I can't march in lockstep with any particular political party or their "be like us" platform.

I have come to believe that one can be pro-gun and still work to preserve wild places. I believe one can be skeptical of the Federal Government and still see the benefit in federal management of public land.

I believe issues stand on their own, and as a hunter, I will make up my own mind on them individually, without anyone marginalizing my opinion by labeling me as something if I disagree with them on some issue.

Just because hunters and environmentalists may find agreement on one issue doesn't mean they agree on everything. In fact, seeing some issues similarly may well bring some of them around on other issues, like gun ownership and hunting. We have already seen that with the "hipster hunters" movement.

As such, I personally, have come to support BHA.

Great post. Folks need to look past the "Democrat" or "Republican" monikers when making decisions. From a fiscal policy perspective, my views align closely with those of Republicans. When it comes to environmental matters, my views align more closely with those of Democrats - and I would imagine that is the case with a lot of Roksliders.

 

[airlocksniffer]

Things are more complicated that politicians, political-action committees, and the talking heads on the nightly news-entertainment shows would like us to believe. It's easier to pin a label on someone (or something) and mock it that to engage in any sort of meaningful discussion or provide a real explanation of whatever it is that is being debated, whether it be health care, immigration, gun rights, or the management of public land. This is particularly true when you are trying to gain political traction for a cause and you are limited to stating your case in a 30 second commercial.
Most of us aren't universally conservative or liberal or libertarian or whatever on every issue on which we hold a belief. I don't agree with every position the NRA takes, but I'm a member because I believe in its core agenda. The same is probably true on any large, politically active group which I am, have been, or will be a part of.

Bingo. As with everything, it's rarely black and white (or blue or red, pro or anti gun, etc). It's an insult to my intelligence that the media (and in turn people who believe the media) assumes since I vote democratic I love Hussein Obummer, hate guns, am a cheese-eating surrender monkey, etc. Or since I vote Republican I'm think toddlers should be given AR-15's at birth, Ronald Reagan is the greatest president who ever lived and am an avid bubba who lives for Bud Light and NASCAR. I'll make my own damn mind up and that is generally a little from column A and a little from column B with a whole heaping pile of logic.

I do firmly believe that this dark money funding is terrible stuff and everybody should be against it as it really is the death knell of democracy being replaced by a plutocratic government. Based on that alone, I'm more likely to believe BHA vs GreenDecoys.

 

[Steve O]

BHA sure gives away a lot of Kimbers to be anti gun.

 

[mtnwrunner]

I am still on the fence with BHA. We have talked about working together on Rokslide but I am not going to lie I have some reservations. I am a life long NRA member.

I also was a member and I did not renew in BHA. And I'll go ahead and make a plug for the NRA----if you are not a member, you should be as everyone who owns a firearm should be. Like all the other organizations, I sometimes question where the money goes but they are fighting for the most important reason of all.

Randy

 

[Mike21]

You forgot to include the other "source" I listed http://watchdog.org/203523/sportsmen-group-targeted-green-decoy-environmentalists-fires-back/ which included BHA's rebuttal hence the "fires back" in the title. It was by no means a one way hit piece.

In Land Tawneys BHA bio he says nothing about his work for the Obama campaign in Montana, that's a little "fishy". Would that admission degrade who donates if they new what politicians where being supported. We know it would based mostly on gun rights alone not to mention those that work in the energy industry and believe in free enterprise. Most organizations let you know where they stand and are proud of it. Let's get BHA to give a way a few ar 15s with hi cap mags and then I will be convinced.

One other note:

Greendecoys.com is listed as a "source" by the OP, when it is really a propoganda wing of the dark money group "Environmental Policy Alliance" which is itself a wing of the "Center for Organizational Research & Education (CORE)"

Now if you follow that trail, you will find that they are funded by ... "unknowns."

So we know this:

greendecoys.com:

1. Makes no arguments about the actual work and positions that BHA has.

2. Criticizes BHA's funding while hiding their own.

3. Inexplicably uses a smear campaign to align BHA with anti-gun groups.

For crying out loud, BHA gives away guns with lifetime memberships!

I hate seeing dark money groups like these play this kind of dirty politics.

 

[Ceby7]

I also was a member and I did not renew in BHA. And I'll go ahead and make a plug for the NRA----if you are not a member, you should be as everyone who owns a firearm should be. Like all the other organizations, I sometimes question where the money goes but they are fighting for the most important reason of all.

Randy

I've got to disagree with this, keeping our public lands 'public' and accessible is the MOST important reason of all. A warehouse full of guns does no good if you've got nowhere to hunt!

 

[weaver]

I've got to disagree with this, keeping our public lands 'public' and accessible is the MOST important reason of all. A warehouse full of guns does no good if you've got nowhere to hunt!

And I'll disagree with this. Public land issues are trivial compared to our right to bear arms.

 

[Mike21]

I've got to disagree with this, keeping our public lands 'public' and accessible is the MOST important reason of all. A warehouse full of guns does no good if you've got nowhere to hunt!

Andd the second amendment says nothing about firearms for hunting... BHA giving away bolt action rifles with non lead bullets is not supporting the sec amend, it's basically a statement on what they believe, specific weapons for hunting. Seems like it is a fad these days to be a sportsmen who "is not a gun nut". We are all in the same boat so don't marginalize the " gun nuts" away from the " conservation sportsmens. we are all hunters, so we believe in conservation AND gun rights, those things are very very connected.

 

[Matt Cashell]

You forgot to include the other "source" I listed http://watchdog.org/203523/sportsmen-group-targeted-green-decoy-environmentalists-fires-back/ which included BHA's rebuttal hence the "fires back" in the title. It was by no means a one way hit piece.

In Land Tawneys BHA bio he says nothing about his work for the Obama campaign in Montana, that's a little "fishy". Would that admission degrade who donates if they new what politicians where being supported. We know it would based mostly on gun rights alone not to mention those that work in the energy industry and believe in free enterprise. Most organizations let you know where they stand and are proud of it. Let's get BHA to give a way a few ar 15s with hi cap mags and then I will be convinced.

Mike,

My point is greendecoys is not a source. It is a dark money propoganda group. You are concerned about BHA's funding which is openly reported and available.

Most organizations let you know where they stand and are proud of it.

It seems BHA is clear on where they stand:

https://www.backcountryhunters.org/index.php/our-work-our-values/our-purpose-and-objectives

Let me know what you find about greendecoys funding. You won't find it, because it is not reported. Their (greendecoy's) information is the hit piece.

Their goal is to obfuscate the work BHA does, and try to divert the argument to gun control, which as you can see from this thread, is a pretty effective tactic. It is also completely dishonest.

BHA has a Kimber executive on their national board and they don't just give away bolt actions (as if that isn't pro-gun enough anyway), but also concealed carry pocket pistols and 1911s. This BHA anti-gun thing is simply untrue.

As far as Land Tawny, it seems like he may be a Democrat that supported the Democratic nominee for president. That doesn't make him anti-gun, and his support of Obama doesn't mean BHA supported Obama.

The truth is BHA is comprised of members with a wide array of political beliefs that find common ground on certain issues that BHA works on. That is pretty refreshing in the politically polarized country we live in now.

 

[avodude]

And I'll disagree with this. Public land issues are trivial compared to our right to bear arms.

I'll fight for both public land and the right to bear arms. No need to pick one over the other.

 

[dotman]

You forgot to include the other "source" I listed http://watchdog.org/203523/sportsmen-group-targeted-green-decoy-environmentalists-fires-back/ which included BHA's rebuttal hence the "fires back" in the title. It was by no means a one way hit piece.

In Land Tawneys BHA bio he says nothing about his work for the Obama campaign in Montana, that's a little "fishy". Would that admission degrade who donates if they new what politicians where being supported. We know it would based mostly on gun rights alone not to mention those that work in the energy industry and believe in free enterprise. Most organizations let you know where they stand and are proud of it. Let's get BHA to give a way a few ar 15s with hi cap mags and then I will be convinced.

Are you really surprised, unfortunately the Republicans have been trying to sell off our public lands for many years, do you really think all hunting conservation organization are just republicans?

 

[weaver]

I'll fight for both public land and the right to bear arms. No need to pick one over the other.

I agree

 

[dotman]

And I'll disagree with this. Public land issues are trivial compared to our right to bear arms.

Really, so if we lost all public lands tomorrow what would you do with all your firearms, just admire them? Public lands are just as important as firearm rights.

Don't forget many many shooting ranges are on public lands, not just hunting areas.

 

[weaver]

Really, so if we lost all public lands tomorrow what would you do with all your firearms, just admire them? Public lands are just as important as firearm rights.

Don't forget many many shooting ranges are on public lands, not just hunting areas.

For hunting purposes yes....
but in the big picture the 2nd is not about hunting.

 

[Matt Cashell]

Well greendecoys has succeeded, they managed to make this, insanely, into a political gun-control debate.

 

[avodude]

Really, so if we lost all public lands tomorrow what would you do with all your firearms, just admire them? Public lands are just as important as firearm rights.

Our forefather's fought to break away from England, where the land and all the animals that lived on it belonged to the king. Our second amendment rights support this from ever happening. Both public land and second amendment rights go hand in hand. This land belongs to us and will get sold off to the highest bidder (the king) unless we keep the land from transferring.

 

[Mike21]

Mike,

My point is greendecoys is not a source. It is a dark money propoganda group. You are concerned about BHA's funding which is openly reported and available.



Let me know what you find about greendecoys funding. You won't find it, because it is not reported. Their (greendecoy's) information is the hit piece.

Their goal is to obfuscate the work BHA does, and try to divert the argument to gun control, which as you can see from this thread, is a pretty effective tactic. It is also completely dishonest.

BHA has a Kimber executive on their national board and they don't just give away bolt actions (as if that isn't pro-gun enough anyway), but also concealed carry pocket pistols and 1911s. This BHA anti-gun thing is simply untrue.

As far as Land Tawny, it seems like he may be a Democrat that supported the Democratic nominee for president. That doesn't make him anti-gun, and his support of Obama doesn't mean BHA supported Obama.

The truth is BHA is comprised of members with a wide array of political beliefs that find common ground on certain issues that BHA works on. That is pretty refreshing in the politically polarized country we live in now.

Bitter Bulls,

The " source" listed was http://watchdog.org/203523/sportsmen-group-targeted-green-decoy-environmentalists-fires-back/, this is not Green Decoys, it even calls the green decoy video "slick". It was written by "Tom Steward covers government waste, spending and policy issues in his home state of Minnesota. Also a documentary filmmaker and in-depth broadcast journalist, Tom's work has appeared on NPR, Animal Planet, WCCO-TV, WGBH-TV, PBS, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, KSTP-TV, CBC, among other outlets. Highlights include the fall of the Berlin Wall, a Peabody Award, the first footage in the wild of the endangered Sumatran tiger and rhino and countless individuals who shared their stories, big and small. Steward served as a communications strategist in the U.S. Senate before returning to reporting on issues and people often overlooked by other media."

"BHA was quoted In the Duluth News Tribune recently, BHA’s Lien again took aim at the Environmental Policy Alliance and “big-industry corporate types looking to fatten their already bursting bank accounts at the expense of everyday, hardworking Americans. Whether you hunt deer in Minnesota’s Superior National Forest or elk in Colorado’s San Juan National Forest, the effort by fringe politicians and special interests to transfer or sell public lands that you depend on to hunt, fish and recreate — robbing us of our American birthright — should be a concern.”

Sounds like a source to me..... Correct?

 

[dotman]

Well greendecoys has succeeded, they managed to make this, insanely, into a political gun-control debate.

I agree...

 

[Matt Cashell]

Sounds like a source to me..... Correct?

As you can see from my post I said ... "greendecoys is not a source." I was speaking about greendecoys. Greendecoys is not a source. It is a darkmoney group.

BHA is open and honest about what they do and where they get their funding. greendecoys is not.

Is there any actual information about BHA working in any way at all, ever, for gun control?

Didn't think so.