Who does the most for hunters?

[mtwarden]

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.

I can think of a third- colluding with the Russians

 

[ChrisS]

That's why im asking is it just b.s. or is BHA hiding financials so sportsmen don't find out they are being backed by antis

It's BS. GreenDecoys filed a bogus complaint to IRS (which means nothing - anyone can file a compliant). BHA wasn't required to file a schedule B before 2013. They were required to file a schedule B in 2013. And they filed one. Yes, BHA received money from a number of foundations and charitable trusts who think that safeguarding public land is a worthy cause. Some of those foundations fund other environmental causes. If they were stridently anti-hunting would they fund an organization that has the very word "hunter" in their name? And BHA is not hiding that fact. You can look up BHA's financials. Funny how Green Decoy's has never published a follow-up fto their accusation from the IRS.

The greendecoys smear campaign is funded by dark money from corporations whose goal is to discredit any organization that may stand in the way of their corporate paymasters. Rinella talks about it here. Try to look up Green Decoy's or Environmental Policy Alliance's funding partners. Oh wait, here are Berman's exact words:

"The last thing that I'll tell you: Jack mentioned that there was some companies who have been supporting what we're doing, and who have pledged to do some stuff in the future. People always ask me one question all the time, "How do I know that I won't be found out as a supporter of what you're doing?"

We run all of this stuff through nonprofit organizations that are insulated from having to disclose donors. There is total anonymity. People don't know who supports us. We've been doing this for 20 something years in this regard. And to the degree to anybody is concerned about that I will tell you there are all sorts of ways, all sorts of firewalls that have been established to get this done on an anonymous [basis] (inaudible).

Edited to add: I'm not a tax lawyer, but the reporting requirements for Schedule B changed for 2013 so that could also be the reason, besides a poor tax preparer, that BHA's reporting requirement changed.

 

[brn2hnt]

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

Curious as to what "proof" would satisfy you?

 

[BuzzH]

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.

Good idea...and likely something you don't want to hear, but the Wyoming BHA chapter has donated yearly to AccessYes here in Wyoming...to the tune of nearly $2k since the Chapter was formed 3 years ago. The WYBHA board is serious about public access and we prove it...every year by putting our money where it counts.

"Rumor" has it, that one of the WYBHA board is in the top 10 of private donors to AccessYes as well...

Not bad for a bunch of green decoys.

 

[orionthehunter1]

You guys should work on opening up the wilderness to non resident hunters

 

[BuzzH]

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

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

Thought I would clear up a few things on this post, since you're always the first to bust balls on anything related to BHA or resource policy.

I'll give you fair warning...you aren't dealing with a tourist.

First off, BHA has never tried to hide or deny their funding, ever. Frankly, there never has been a reason to. Its a non-issue.

As to the Greendecoy crap, well a lot of it is a pack of lies...one of the biggest is that BHA members are not even hunters and anglers. That's bullchit of the first order, and in fact, nothing but a lie. The WYBHA board, and many of our members, are some of the best hunters, fishermen, trappers, and woodsmen found anywhere. For most of us, hunting, fishing, and trapping isn't something we just talk about at cocktail parties...we live it, breath it, and truly defines who we are...just a fact. I find it pretty laughable, that some 5 watt like Richard Baerman and his green decoy bullchit, would try to define who is, and is not, a sportsmen. As if he would have the first clue. So, from the get-go, he's a liar.

As to the issues surrounding public lands being political...well no kidding. As one member of BHA so profoundly put it in regard to the politics of public lands, hunting, and outdoor recreation in general, "If you aren't at the table, you're on the menu". While I also would like to live in the fantasyland where politics were not a major part of resource policy...that's just the reality. You get into wildlife, public lands, and resource issues...its going to involve heavy doses of politics. No question the ugly side of trying to keep our public lands in place, science managing our resources, and the funding in place to accomplish it all. BHA and myself will be at the table, be part of the discussion, and get our voices heard...I've no desire to be on the menu.

BHA does not want to deny responsible resource extraction...in fact, just the opposite:

BHA Report Finds Sage Grouse, Energy Development Can Coexist - Backcountry Hunters and Anglers

From the article:

"Energy development is an appropriate and necessary use of our public lands, particularly in the West, yet it must be pursued responsibly and in the right places,” Gale continued. “Our report shows that the vast majority of greater sage grouse habitat is ill-suited to energy development of any kind, now or in the future – and that more than three-quarters of areas potentially suited to energy production located outside areas important to sage grouse.”

What problem do you have with that kind of statement?

BHA does not want to control management, we want to have a seat at the table, just like the oil and gas industry, loggers, landowners, outfitters, etc. etc. etc. have. Again...its that whole being at the table, being on the menu argument. Wildlife and public lands need supporters and someone to speak on their behalf. Hunters, Anglers, and Trappers also deserve a seat at the table to represent their interests as well.

Is that a problem for you?

I also contend that you are very confused on what Multiple Use means...try reading the Act before you spout off about what the BLM and NFS were "created for". They were not meant to be exploited for the sum of the greatest unit output of natural resources...never were. In fact, if you've ever bothered to read the Act, you would know it specifically states, that "that some land will be used for less than all of the resources; and harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources, each with the other, without impairment of the productivity of the land, with consideration being given to the relative values of the various resources, and not necessarily the combination of uses that will give the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output."

What you imply in many of your posts, including this one, is that every acre of NF land has to have an oil well, a timber sale, grazing, recreation, roads, and be exploited for all its potential resources and uses. That was NEVER the case when the MUSYA was passed in 1960, and its still not the case today.

Pull off the blinders, special interests have been exploiting public lands for profit for as long as public lands have existed. Why is it all right if a lumber company special interest lobbies for increasing timber production on NF lands, but not OK for hunters and anglers special interests to lobby for secure wildlife habitat? Or clean water for fish? Why is it OK for Ranchers to lobby for grazing, but somehow Hunters and Anglers are supposed to just zip it when they want some grass left for elk?

What part of equal consideration for all uses of public lands are you missing? You're surely not implying that Hunters, Anglers, and the associated special interests of same are not to be part of the process? Are you?

BHA and its members work within the public process, no differently than any other group is entitled to do. Its not about political affiliation, as frankly, I couldn't care less about R, D, I or any partisan politics. I don't work on behalf of any of them, I work on behalf of public lands, wildlife, and the continued future of hunting, fishing, trapping, and outdoor recreation of all kinds.

Carry on....

 

[BuzzH]

You guys should work on opening up the wilderness to non resident hunters

Its been discussed...don't quite think you know what kind of "lift" that would take.

WYBHA did stop a really bad state land exchange from happening this past November...and that took a lot of work from the entire board. It kept public access to about 5K acres of public lands for both R and NR hunters, fisherman, hikers, birdwatchers, trappers, etc. etc.

State board denies controversial land swap | Open Spaces | trib.com

 

[orionthehunter1]

OH I realize it will be a hell of a battle, but I think it is worth fighting for. It will probably take some outfitters to back you guys and support you for this issue.

 

[BuzzH]

OH I realize it will be a hell of a battle, but I think it is worth fighting for. It will probably take some outfitters to back you guys and support you for this issue.

You really think outfitters are going to support us on that issue? They got the legislation passed...to benefit their bottom line. Prolly be a pretty short list of outfitter support for repealing their wilderness guide law...just going out on the ragged, hairy edge on that.

 

[orionthehunter1]

No I don't but I feel having some outfitter support might tip the scale in your favor. I realize that outfitters were the major factors that got the law passed in the first place

 

[JWP58]

Good idea...and likely something you don't want to hear, but the Wyoming BHA chapter has donated yearly to AccessYes here in Wyoming...to the tune of nearly $2k since the Chapter was formed 3 years ago. The WYBHA board is serious about public access and we prove it...every year by putting our money where it counts.

"Rumor" has it, that one of the WYBHA board is in the top 10 of private donors to AccessYes as well...

Not bad for a bunch of green decoys.

Thats great you're actually taking the time to share where bha money is being spent...if only that was done on a national level. Rmef releases information every year detailing where money went. Why won't bha? I've looked , I've asked, yet to see anything.

Since you're the all knowing grand master of knowledge why don't you just set the record straight oh wise pompous one.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

Thought I would clear up a few things on this post, since you're always the first to bust balls on anything related to BHA or resource policy.

I'll give you fair warning...you aren't dealing with a tourist.

First off, BHA has never tried to hide or deny their funding, ever. Frankly, there never has been a reason to. Its a non-issue.

As to the Greendecoy crap, well a lot of it is a pack of lies...one of the biggest is that BHA members are not even hunters and anglers. That's bullchit of the first order, and in fact, nothing but a lie. The WYBHA board, and many of our members, are some of the best hunters, fishermen, trappers, and woodsmen found anywhere. For most of us, hunting, fishing, and trapping isn't something we just talk about at cocktail parties...we live it, breath it, and truly defines who we are...just a fact. I find it pretty laughable, that some 5 watt like Richard Baerman and his green decoy bullchit, would try to define who is, and is not, a sportsmen. As if he would have the first clue. So, from the get-go, he's a liar.

As to the issues surrounding public lands being political...well no kidding. As one member of BHA so profoundly put it in regard to the politics of public lands, hunting, and outdoor recreation in general, "If you aren't at the table, you're on the menu". While I also would like to live in the fantasyland where politics were not a major part of resource policy...that's just the reality. You get into wildlife, public lands, and resource issues...its going to involve heavy doses of politics. No question the ugly side of trying to keep our public lands in place, science managing our resources, and the funding in place to accomplish it all. BHA and myself will be at the table, be part of the discussion, and get our voices heard...I've no desire to be on the menu.

BHA does not want to deny responsible resource extraction...in fact, just the opposite:

BHA Report Finds Sage Grouse, Energy Development Can Coexist - Backcountry Hunters and Anglers

From the article:

"Energy development is an appropriate and necessary use of our public lands, particularly in the West, yet it must be pursued responsibly and in the right places,” Gale continued. “Our report shows that the vast majority of greater sage grouse habitat is ill-suited to energy development of any kind, now or in the future – and that more than three-quarters of areas potentially suited to energy production located outside areas important to sage grouse.”

What problem do you have with that kind of statement?

BHA does not want to control management, we want to have a seat at the table, just like the oil and gas industry, loggers, landowners, outfitters, etc. etc. etc. have. Again...its that whole being at the table, being on the menu argument. Wildlife and public lands need supporters and someone to speak on their behalf. Hunters, Anglers, and Trappers also deserve a seat at the table to represent their interests as well.

Is that a problem for you?

I also contend that you are very confused on what Multiple Use means...try reading the Act before you spout off about what the BLM and NFS were "created for". They were not meant to be exploited for the sum of the greatest unit output of natural resources...never were. In fact, if you've ever bothered to read the Act, you would know it specifically states, that "that some land will be used for less than all of the resources; and harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources, each with the other, without impairment of the productivity of the land, with consideration being given to the relative values of the various resources, and not necessarily the combination of uses that will give the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output."

What you imply in many of your posts, including this one, is that every acre of NF land has to have an oil well, a timber sale, grazing, recreation, roads, and be exploited for all its potential resources and uses. That was NEVER the case when the MUSYA was passed in 1960, and its still not the case today.

Pull off the blinders, special interests have been exploiting public lands for profit for as long as public lands have existed. Why is it all right if a lumber company special interest lobbies for increasing timber production on NF lands, but not OK for hunters and anglers special interests to lobby for secure wildlife habitat? Or clean water for fish? Why is it OK for Ranchers to lobby for grazing, but somehow Hunters and Anglers are supposed to just zip it when they want some grass left for elk?

What part of equal consideration for all uses of public lands are you missing? You're surely not implying that Hunters, Anglers, and the associated special interests of same are not to be part of the process? Are you?

BHA and its members work within the public process, no differently than any other group is entitled to do. Its not about political affiliation, as frankly, I couldn't care less about R, D, I or any partisan politics. I don't work on behalf of any of them, I work on behalf of public lands, wildlife, and the continued future of hunting, fishing, trapping, and outdoor recreation of all kinds.

Carry on....

WhHHOOHHOOOO Buzz, tell me how you really feel. But, before you do, Let me assure you, I'm no tourist to special interest lobbying either. I've set at a few tables in my day. Nor, have I ever implied they tried to hide their funding. However, I can assure you I haven't begin to bust anyone's balls yet.

brn2hunt, more examples of similar reports like Buzz just posted. To stop taking questionable funding. And, to step away from public owned land designations.

 

[Jason Snyder]

No I don't but I feel having some outfitter support might tip the scale in your favor. I realize that outfitters were the major factors that got the law passed in the first place

No way in hell they are going to buck their own outfitters and guides association on this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk