Who does the most for hunters?

[missjordan]

RMEF is the only one I renew every year but I have been a member of BHA in the past. My family has ties to RMEF since the beginning so I will always remain loyal to them


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[maninthemaze]

RMEF and the NRA are the only ones I donate to.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[Billinsd]

California Waterfowl Assocation does the most I've ever seen. Well, my local quail forever does a ton with what they get.

 

[cuerro viejo]

SCI on legal fronts, RMEF on access and general conservation.

 

[cuerro viejo]

SCI and DSC on legal fronts, RMEF on access and general conservation.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

SCI and the NRA gets most of my yearly contributions. NWTF used to get it too. I need to get back to that. I actually took that yearly contribution and started giving it to Saint Jude's monthly. I usually give a bit more during election years to different state hunting groups fighting some ballot initiative to eliminate trapping or hunting.

FWIW orionsbrother for the WIN. BOOM! It's funny to me that all BHA guys say disregard the Green Decoy group but, are unable to contest that the BHA does in fact take that radical funding. Which is what the Green Decoys brought to task with them initially. It's public tax information so, there is no denying it.

 

[mtwarden]

I've met several of the local BHA officers and they appear to be very salt of the earth guys with a genuine interest in protecting our access to the backcountry. They also have some really fun get togethers throughout the year. In my opinion they walk the walk.

RMEF and MDF in my experience are worthy organizations as well.

 

[Beendare]

Orion, thx for the background on BHA.....pass

 

[WV Mountaineer]

I've met several of the local BHA officers and they appear to be very salt of the earth guys with a genuine interest in protecting our access to the backcountry. They also have some really fun get togethers throughout the year. In my opinion they walk the walk.

RMEF and MDF in my experience are worthy organizations as well.

I've never doubted everyone in the BHA doing the ground work are indeed great people. I don't think anyone does. For that matter, I think Obama was probably a pretty likable guy as well. However, he often held fundamental differences with a vast majority of people that live like we do.

 

[airlocksniffer]

SCI and the NRA gets most of my yearly contributions. NWTF used to get it too. I need to get back to that. I actually took that yearly contribution and started giving it to Saint Jude's monthly. I usually give a bit more during election years to different state hunting groups fighting some ballot initiative to eliminate trapping or hunting.

FWIW orionsbrother for the WIN. BOOM! It's funny to me that all BHA guys say disregard the Green Decoy group but, are unable to contest that the BHA does in fact take that radical funding. Which is what the Green Decoys brought to task with them initially. It's public tax information so, there is no denying it.

So Green Decoys, funded by oil and gas executives who would like nothing else than have free reign on yours and my public lands vs BHA, who as a 501c3 have books open to the public, have funding from various conservation organizations, not to mention hunters like myself. Pick your poison I suppose. More information courtesy of another thread on Rokslide:

http://www.rokslide.com/forums/general-discussion-forum/27303-green-decoys.html#post318949

 

[orionthehunter1]

Again I was just asking because a few people showed me that tax info. I was curious if it was b.s. or if bha is covering something. I will continue to research before I decide to commit. It is quite repetitive though that whenever questioned nobody denies it they just start hounding on green decoys. I've seen the same smoke and mirrors from SFW

 

[Bar]

RMEF for me.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

Again I was just asking because a few people showed me that tax info. I was curious if it was b.s. or if bha is covering something. I will continue to research before I decide to commit. It is quite repetitive though that whenever questioned nobody denies it they just start hounding on green decoys. I've seen the same smoke and mirrors from SFW

Yes it is. And, right on par it happens again.

Like I said above, this was hashed out in details a couple years ago on another forum. Where a high ranking BHA member posted their IRA forms for public viewing. There they were. The pew foundation and a couple others. The same contributors of the Sierra Club, HSUS. and others. No denying it. Yet the only response you get in rebuttal is to try and defame the group pointing it out. Seems that trickles down to individuals too.


It's funny because when they try to steer you into believing the Green Decoys has alterior motives, they don't take into account that everything they said about the BHA was simply true. Just the facts of it. They do Infact take that radical funding. It turns into a slander campaign. Which is why they insist the funding of the green decoys is biased. Yet, insist, in their case it isn't.


Fundamentally, their argument is very appealing. Has a place and, would be worthy of consideration if it were not politically motivated. They want control over management. They want to deny responsible resource extraction. Something the NF's and BLM holdings were created for. It goes against founding principles. They want to call the shots on management too. It's a polar opposite to what the FLMPA was intended for. Which was To give ALL pubically used lands in this country, a multiple use management scheme.


I've had these debates with BHA members for years. All I have ever met talk from a very left leaning position. All seem to follow a party goal instead of truly being a rational thinker on public land issues. It's a we decide what's best for everybody mentality.

Public lands don't belong to special interests. They belong to the people as a whole. Involving a special interest group in dictating management, ensures that multiple use doctrine is abused. How is it then that they are champions of protecting public lands?


I don't doubt the character of the members. I simply want to know why they take funding from organizations that are blatantly against public land use and HUNTING.


Do the research. Look into the money. Tesearch the pew trust. Look into the organizations they fund. Then simply ask why? It is that simple. No one is doubting any individuals intent. But, a simple question was asked and once again, no answer from the people who it addressed. Why?



I don't claim to know it all. I want to be wrong here. But, 3 years of this and all I've gotten is the same run around. Plus the undeniable IRS documents that says the green decoys was right about the BHA's funding. That's it. Please, make me a believer.

God Bless men

 

[vanish]

Yay, another thread with BHA! ( Yes, I am an active member )

Richard Berman - Wikipedia Can't believe anyone would fall for the garbage Richard Berman puts out (Green Decoys). The dude's sole job is to create smear campaigns via non-profits that sound like real groups. So ... a task force created by Berman ("Environmental Policy Alliance") at an organization founded by Berman ( "Center for Organizational Research and Education" ) published on a website owned by Berman ( "Green Decoys" ). Who is the one trying to deceive?

FWIW orionsbrother for the WIN. BOOM! It's funny to me that all BHA guys say disregard the Green Decoy group but, are unable to contest that the BHA does in fact take that radical funding. Which is what the Green Decoys brought to task with them initially. It's public tax information so, there is no denying it.

I looked up the groups mentioned. I see no "radical funding". I see groups that care about having habitat for animals - something I as a hunter care about, too. Not one of them has an anti-hunting stance.

Home - Wilburforce Foundation
Home : Western Conservation Foundation
Hewlett Foundation
The Pew Charitable Trusts

 

[2ski]

Yes it is. And, right on par it happens again.

Like I said above, this was hashed out in details a couple years ago on another forum. Where a high ranking BHA member posted their IRA forms for public viewing. There they were. The pew foundation and a couple others. The same contributors of the Sierra Club, HSUS. and others. No denying it. Yet the only respond you get in rebuttal is to try and defame the group pointing it out. Seems that trickles down to individuals too.


It's funny because when they try to steer you into believing the Green Decoys has alterior motives, they don't take into account that everything they said about the BHA was simply true. Just the facts of it. They do Infact take that radical funding.


It turns into a slander campaign. Which is why they insist the funding of the green decoys is biased. Yet, insist, in their case it isn't.


Fundamentally, their argument is very appealing. Has a place and would be worthy of consideration if it were not politically motivated. They want control over management. They want to deny resource extraction. They want to call the shots. That's contradictory to the multiple use doctrine that comes with public land and, federally owned public use land. It's a polar opposite frankly.


I've had these debates with BHA members for years. All I have ever met talk from a very left leaning position. All seem to follow a party goal instead of truly being a rational thinker on public land issues.

Public lands don't belong to special interests. They belong to the people as a whole. In loving a special interests ensures that doctrine is abused. How is it then that they are champions of protecting public lands?


I don't doubt the character of the members. I doubt the head positions for taking meetings and funding from organizations that are blatantly against public land use and HUNTING.


Do the research. Look into the money. Shine the pew trust. Look into the organizations they find. Then simply ask why? It is that simple. No one is doubting any individuals intent. But, a simple question was asked and once again, no answer from the people who it addressed. Why?



I don't claim to know it all. I want to be wrong here. But, 3 years of this and all I've gotten is the same run around. Plus the undeniable IRS documents that says the green decoys was right about the BHA's funding. That's it. Please, make me a believer.

God Bless men

I can see where you're coming from, but does it not concern you that the Green Decoys discloses none of its funding? I mean its kind of ironic that a group trying to "out" another group won't disclose its funding at all.

 

[orionthehunter1]

Why would BHA lie on their tax forms about where money was coming from? I can think of only two reasons: they don't want their members to know or something wasn't legal about it.

 

[JWP58]

Not sure what state you live in, but probably the State funded Walk in program/private land public access program of your specific state (or whatever they call it, I think NM refers to it as Open Gates, and MT block management). Nobody seems to ever suggest it, or acknowledge that these programs are good.

Private foundations? Probably the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. They are transparent with their money (and where it comes from/where it goes), and actually use their money for habitat improvement and increased access.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

No. I and everyone knows what the green decoys are. A special interest group trying to influence public opinion. That's a no brainer. Undeniable. What's also undeniable is the funding the BHA accepts. Look into them on google or your internet browser of choice. That one fella posted some of them. I have sources on my computer at home that I can check this evening to see if he included them all.


Back on target, there is no denying what the green decoys group is. I and others need clarification to what the BHA is. That's the question. And, it isn't one lobbed from the back seat. It has several very important implications and reasons for needing clarified.

The first is so we know if it is as appears. A lobbied special interest group being used as a tool. Secondly, and by far the most important, if this group means nothing but good intentions, it'll be clarified for those that doubt it. Could you imagine the influential power we hunters would have if we could unite under one umbrella?


I'm after the second reason. Looking for it everyday. I'm driven for it. Ecause I don't hunt if our public lands disappear. We NEED this group NOW. I WANT the BHA to be this group. So badly do I want it. However, I e seen other hunter friendly groups turn on hunting before. And, before I give one penny or, my earnest attempt to any organization charged with protecting my hunting rights, I'm going to be 100 percent sure that's their sole intent.


If they just prove it, I'll become their most out spoken advocate. I promise.

 

[vanish]

Why would BHA lie on their tax forms about where money was coming from? I can think of only two reasons: they don't want their members to know or something wasn't legal about it.

By the way, BHA has filed a Schedule B every year since and including Tax year 2013 (which would have been filed before the article). You can check their tax returns here: Nonprofit Explorer - BACKCOUNTRY HUNTERS AND ANGLERS - ProPublica

Schedule B is not made public except upon request. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f990ezb.pdf

For all other organizations that file Form 990 or 990-EZ, the names and addresses of contributors aren't required to be made available for public inspection.

Could it be possible that they just had a mediocre tax prep firm instead of something nefarious? I see they switched preparers after that 2012 filing. That was also the year Land Tawney took over.

Edit: I've said all I really can at this point. My advice would be to go meet your local BHA officers (they have lots of events, at least around here) - let them do the talking and judge for yourself.

 

[orionthehunter1]

yeah unfortunately they rarely do any events in my area and I don't believe they've ever had one down here where I live.