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

[Murdy]

"These people aren't anti gun necessarily, they just are members of and/or donate to a party whose platform is openly anti 2nd amendment."

When our state joined the rest of the country and authorized concealed carry, the move was largely driven by rural Democratic politicians.

 

[gelton]

I disagree. I'll be the 9th grader: That is an ad hominem attack and a straw man fallacy rolled into one post. Besides it is off-topic and ignores anything that BHA does.

What do you have to say about any of the issues I posted?

Matt,

I think you are an optics genius and value your opinions on optical products but I think you have it wrong on this subject.

Just to clear up some things about myself - I personally don't fall into the "box" of conservative vs. democrat and feel our two party system is severely flawed. I am for the entire bill of rights so I have problems when the left is openly anti 2nd amendment just as I have problems with the right who is anti 4th amendment and pro surveillance/police state.

All I want is to protect ALL of the bill of rights in its entirety and both parties are dong their parts disassembling the whole damn thing but that's an entirely different subject.

I judge information based on facts, not where it came from. Just as most of the commenters have "killed the messenger" (the op) you tried to kill the messenger greendecoys (which I had never heard of before this thread and have no love for one way or the other) without confronting the facts that the op has continually tried to point out.

The fact is the guy was quoted in the New York Times and his quote doesn't bode well for the 2nd amendment. The fact is that the democratic party is openly anti 2nd amendment. The fact is the head of BHA is very close to the democratic party. Those are facts, not ad hominems or straw mans.

This is how I see it - I don't consider myself a very religious guy but Catholics fought obamacare because of the birth control mandate (not because of the party they belonged to) - they didn't want their hard earned money sent off to fund birth control. I will not become a member of BHA because I don't want my hard earned money ending up being donated to a party that openly wants to curb my 2nd amendment rights.

If that doesn't bother you, or if you see the "good" of BHA to be better than the "bad" and you want to venture into that "grey" area - then more power to you. I'll still read your reviews on optics.

Someone mentioned earlier that there are a lot of black and white comments on this thread and I will go so far to say that no one has ever accused me of being grey. Its pretty cut and dry if you ask me. Facts are facts - forget the messenger(s).

 

[dotman]

FYI.... If the dems were mainly anti-2A, we would of lost our gun ownership rights years ago. The democratic far left is anti-2a and is the minority even if the media wants you to believe otherwise.

 

[William Hanson (live2hunt)]

 

[gelton]

FYI.... If the dems were mainly anti-2A, we would of lost our gun ownership rights years ago. The democratic far left is anti-2a and is the minority even if the media wants you to believe otherwise.

I am going to take a guess that you arent from Colorado.

 

[Matt Cashell]

Matt,

I think you are an optics genius and value your opinions on optical products but I think you have it wrong on this subject.

Just to clear up some things about myself - I personally don't fall into the "box" of conservative vs. democrat and feel our two party system is severely flawed. I am for the entire bill of rights so I have problems when the left is openly anti 2nd amendment just as I have problems with the right who is anti 4th amendment and pro surveillance/police state.

All I want is to protect ALL of the bill of rights in its entirety and both parties are dong their parts disassembling the whole damn thing but that's an entirely different subject.

I judge information based on facts, not where it came from. Just as most of the commenters have "killed the messenger" (the op) you tried to kill the messenger greendecoys (which I had never heard of before this thread and have no love for one way or the other) without confronting the facts that the op has continually tried to point out.

The fact is the guy was quoted in the New York Times and his quote doesn't bode well for the 2nd amendment. The fact is that the democratic party is openly anti 2nd amendment. The fact is the head of BHA is very close to the democratic party. Those are facts, not ad hominems or straw mans.

This is how I see it - I don't consider myself a very religious guy but Catholics fought obamacare because of the birth control mandate (not because of the party they belonged to) - they didn't want their hard earned money sent off to fund birth control. I will not become a member of BHA because I don't want my hard earned money ending up being donated to a party that openly wants to curb my 2nd amendment rights.

If that doesn't bother you, or if you see the "good" of BHA to be better than the "bad" and you want to venture into that "grey" area - then more power to you. I'll still read your reviews on optics.

Someone mentioned earlier that there are a lot of black and white comments on this thread and I will go so far to say that no one has ever accused me of being grey. Its pretty cut and dry if you ask me. Facts are facts - forget the messenger(s).

gelton,

You confuse fact and opinion.

It is your opinion that the quote doesn't bode well for the 2nd amendment.
It is your opinion that the Democrat party is anti-2nd amendment. In my opinion many Democratic politicians are anti gun.
You paint with the broad brush there.
The fact is some Democrat politicians write and pass bills expanding gun rights. That is a fact. My opinion is that those particular politicians are pro 2nd amendment, regardless of their party.

The fact is saying "the head of BHA is very close to the democratic party." is the VERY definition of an ad hominem attack. You are trying to discredit him with a personal attack, instead of debating him on an issue.

I understand what you are saying. You can not support any Democrat or any group that has ties to any Democrat because of your opinions about gun control. I understand that, but it has nothing to do with what BHA does, in my opinion.

I appreciate your kind words about my optics reviews, btw.

 

[Mike21]

Mike,

Here are the issues.

1. Your OP was disingenuous. You tried to make it sound like you were researching the issue, and interested in joining BHA. You clearly were not.

2. Your post advises to research political group funding, quoting propaganda from a dark money group. This is problematic on every level because the group they (and you) are trying to smear are a non-profit that openly reports their funding. Yet you haven't taken your own advice and not researched the dark money's funding in any sort of way, and still consider them reliable. BHA's openly available list of donors includes an impressive list of companies from the hunting industry.

3. You have expressed a concern that BHA is anti-gun, to which many posters have disproved with verifiable information. You have provided no information that BHA is antigun.

4. You have posted a quote from 2008 from BHA's director, where he indicated that he thought there was a lot of fear surrounding Obama and gun control. You have extrapolated from that that:

a. Land Tawney supports gun control.
b. That the organization BHA therefore supports gun control.

Any 9th grade debater can explain the problems with making these types of conclusions.

5. You ignore the facts and cling to conspiracy. The facts are:
a. BHA has never supported a gun control ISSUE, ever.
b. BHA gives away guns and has gun company executives on its board.
c. BHA works tirelessly on issues important to hunters like conservation and public access.


You must understand that BHA represents a lot of people, not just Land Tawney.

I don't like dark money groups from either side including the far right (Koch) and far left (Soros). Dark money conspiracies are more than theories.

I posted that I thought this thread was a wreck. Now though, I really think it has been overall quite positive, and most readers can find some good information here. Judging from the PMs I have received, it also seems like BHA has had a nice boost in membership.

1. From 9th grade you surely remember that the "thesis" is the foundation of an argument either in debate or in essay form. Although neither of us can prove that I was or was not disingenuous in my original post, I can give you my word that I was not. I was open and honest as I am now.

2. I noted the green decoy as one of two sources. The other being a source where BHA was quoted and both sides, green decoy and BHA arguments were stated. I then went on to source quotes from Mr. Tawney directly. Please remember the full quote as you only included the portion you wanted to argue. “There’s a lot of talk about Obama and guns, and — I’ll be honest with you — a lot of fear,” said Tawney. “But at least he’s not trying to fake it. Not like John Kerry with a dead goose over his shoulder and new hunting outfit one month before the election.” . John Kerry is now our Sec of state who is negotiates things like UN arms treaties etc. Is this only propaganda sources I noted? Keeping track? Now we are moving to 7th grade which might be a little advanced.

3. I expressed concern that BHA is anti gun based on the fact that many of their national leadership supported President Obama and actively worked on his campaign. Its circumstantial evidence at best but it does support my initial thesis to do research before donating money. From an objective view point this is not conspiracy and a question I would like Land/BHA to answer.

4.“But at least he’s not trying to fake it. Not like John Kerry with a dead goose over his shoulder and new hunting outfit one month before the election.” Remember to include the whole quote before only arguing your point of view. That is defined as an "out of context" argument.
a. Land Tawney actively worked on the campaign for the the most anti 2nd amend president ever. So maybe that was the one thing Land disagreed with, its possible.
b. See point A.

5.
a. BHA has not supported a Issue as a group, but individually they have directly supported national Politicians that ARE anti gun.
b. I dont disagree that they give away guns and have never stated otherwise. Strawman Argument
c. I dont disagree and have stated otherwise, "I believe in the stated mission of BHA" This is your Strawman approach again

I have never expressed support for a dark money group, I noted green decoys as one of a few opposing view points which conveniently you have left our or have to argument to discredit. Strawman again....

I think we may need to get you back to Speech 101. You remember that group agreement is not the same as a factual thesis......

 

[dotman]

I am going to take a guess that you arent from Colorado.

Nope, MT born and raised but hey my parents retired in CO many moons ago, currently live in the most liberal county in KS. I'm not a sky is falling individual as both the far right or left would like you to believe or spin our current political climate. Majority of the American population is moderate, I have many co-worker that don't and won't own a gun but still are not pro gun control.

You must think the far left Denver/Boulder area is the majority in the the democratic party, otherwise why else would you say you aren't from CO. If the democrats in CO are so anti-gun we'll know the next election cycle if your governor is vote back in.

Unfortunately CO has been hit hard by a minority of CA residents that want to turn CO into CA.

 

[jryoung]

Long time lurker and BHA members thoughts.

If you have questions about BHA, their motives, or anything else why debate on the internet, when you can just call them.

https://www.backcountryhunters.org/index.php/home/contact-us

You can call the office and talk to Land.

Further, it is also important to note that like any company, the direction of BHA is steered by it's members, it's staff and it's Board of Directors. Based on my personal experience in the professional world of many Fortune 500 companies you'll find diverse political views of Executives and BODs in the most successful of companies, where said company focus directly on their mission. BHA's mission is to protect your right to a healthy place to hunt and fish.

 

[Mike21]

"If you think the far left Denver metro is the majority in the the democratic party otherwise why else would you say you aren't from CO. If the democrats in CO are so anti-gun we'll know the next election cycle of your governor is vote back in.[/QUOTE]

Actually CO Governor Hickenlooper this year, was voted back in even after the gun legislation he signed off on.... It was with the support of blue dog type democrats in the rural counties that allowed the legislation to pass. Some of them were indeed removed from office this election cycle. But that goes to show you what happens when you compromise on your core values. We need 4 things- Public Land, Weapons to hunt with, People to pass on the tradition and Animals to hunt. Those are foundational, those are links in a chain, compromise on one and we lose the whole thing....

 

[dotman]

Not that I'm for the CO gun regs that changed, but what change in the regs hampered any of your 4 things above? Magazine limits? Stupid additional background checks? Or was it legal pot?

And how did the BHA have anything to do with this?

What BHA does do is stop any further environmental disasters like the Summitville mine, which is costing all tax payers millions each year to clean up after completely polluting all the waters and soil in a huge area with arsenic.

 

[gelton]

Long time lurker and BHA members thoughts.

If you have questions about BHA, their motives, or anything else why debate on the internet, when you can just call them.

https://www.backcountryhunters.org/index.php/home/contact-us

You can call the office and talk to Land.

Probably the best piece of advice in the entire thread.

 

[Matt Cashell]

I will answer your questions/statements by number:

1. Your thesis is to do your research on funding for political groups. On this I agree completely. I have done this on BHA, and like what I see. Please do this on Green Decoys and let me know what you find.

2. Your other source watchdog.org is just another dark money group regurgitating your first source and a denial by a BHA member. That is what we are debating in this thread.

3. It is not circumstantial evidence, it is speculation. The problem in your logic is assuming that money that goes to BHA somehow goes to Land Tawney personally, and then on to Obama. I encourage you to contact Land and find out what he really thinks.

4. I don't know how that part of the quote changes the first part. I also don't know what it has to do with BHA. I don't know what you are saying. It sounds like Tawney is saying he doesn't support Kerry and/or political grandstanding.

5. Please provide your evidence of BHA directly supporting anti gun politicians. I am glad we agree that BHA gives away guns and you state you agree with their mission. Neither of those are strawmen, and makes me think you should join BHA.

this didn't have a number:

I have never expressed support for a dark money group, I noted green decoys as one of a few opposing view points which conveniently you have left our or have to argument to discredit. Strawman again....

All of green decoys arguments have been repeatedly discredited throughout this thread. My point is in regards to your thesis: Research green decoys funding.

 

[Matt Cashell]

Welcome to Rokslide, jryoung!

 

[Mike21]

Not that I'm for the CO gun regs that changed, but what change in the regs hampered any of your 4 things above? Magazine limits? Stupid additional background checks? Or was it legal pot?

.

Well should we then compromise on some more Fed land back to the state, maybe a few oil leases in a few wilderness? Just following your logic...

 

[Jason Snyder]

"But that goes to show you what happens when you compromise on your core values. We need 4 things- Public Land, Weapons to hunt with, People to pass on the tradition and Animals to hunt. Those are foundational, those are links in a chain, compromise on one and we lose the whole thing....

In your attempt to "square the circle", you have just proved the point I have been trying make and contradicted your own. If you are an NRA supporter and contribute money to them, you are directly supporting some of the politicians that are pushing the hardest for state acquisition of federal lands. Some of them would also support privatization of wildlife. I fully realize that, and also realized that I can mitigate that through other means. It doesn't mean that the NRA becomes irrelevant for me, because it serves a role in a political niche.

If you try to make a group of folks that agrees on each of these four points, you won't have a very big group. As a result, they won't have very much political power, nor will they accomplish much of anything that is meaningful.

 

[gelton]

gelton,

You confuse fact and opinion.

It is your opinion that the quote doesn't bode well for the 2nd amendment.
It is your opinion that the Democrat party is anti-2nd amendment. In my opinion many Democratic politicians are anti gun.
You paint with the broad brush there.
The fact is some Democrat politicians write and pass bills expanding gun rights. That is a fact. My opinion is that those particular politicians are pro 2nd amendment, regardless of their party.

The fact is saying "the head of BHA is very close to the democratic party." is the VERY definition of an ad hominem attack. You are trying to discredit him with a personal attack, instead of debating him on an issue.

I understand what you are saying. You can not support any Democrat or any group that has ties to any Democrat because of your opinions about gun control. I understand that, but it has nothing to do with what BHA does, in my opinion.

I appreciate your kind words about my optics reviews, btw.

So maybe I confuse fact with fiction because when democrats are in power my 2nd amendment rights are always under attack. Ask Colorado gun owners or those fighting the M855 ammo ban if that is an opinion.

With a well documented (not heresay) history of helping the democratic party win elections over republicans I would say that his ties to the democratic party are well documented. Another fact, not opinion.

Facts are pretty stubborn things you know.

 

[Mike21]

All of green decoys arguments have been repeatedly discredited throughout this thread.

Ok I will take the bait dammit, one of green decoys arguments was the "Land Tawney worked for the Obama campaign in 2008 under the guise of Montana Sportsmen for Obama". President Obama is the most anti 2nd amend blah blah blah. I have not seen that argument discredited. There, we successfully beat a dead horse. Green decoys was a slick hit piece, I agree but it did contain some factual information. Just like the NY times article, BHA website (how objective is that going to be?) etc. In the process of doing research you should objectively look at all the sources and come to an educated conclusion. I feel we both have done that. I just started from a non BHA member place and you started as a BHA member who feels too threatened to become objective.

Lets have this discussion over a beer one day, possibly moving to Western Montana this summer to infiltrate on behalf of green decoys...... Im joking about the green decoys part.

I am going to call Land, then join BHA just to spite you all.......

 

[Jason Snyder]

Well should we then compromise on some more Fed land back to the state, maybe a few oil leases in a few wilderness? Just following your logic...

Nothing but hyperbole. One should look at all options in life with an open mind, and never say never. Each instance should be evaluated on its individual merit and not political dogma.

 

[Jason Snyder]

I am going to call Land, then join BHA just to spite you all.......

I'll buy you a beer at next year's rendezvous.