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
