The Wolf Hide Is Being Pulled Down Over The Sportsman's Eyes!

[snowpack]

[Enviro groups will do what they can to get the land first, then kick off the non-desirables later.

Every one of them? Am I to accept at face value that every group with environmental concerns is anti hunting? That seems to be the implication of the article: BHA took money from some "environmental" groups, and that proves they are anti hunting?

That statement didn't say anti-hunting, but it is applicable to many groups.  Lots of coalitions formed between different groups of different outlooks, but at the time with common goals.  One of the biggies in Western Washington seems to be groups that are anti-logging.  They form up all across the board to protect habitat and hunters like to join in thinking they will have more forest to grow game, but then find many of their former allies moving on to the next phase of their end goals--i.e. wolf intro or banning hound or working on getting the movement to ban spring bear, etc.

[Elkaholic daWg]

It is obvious things are messed up beyond repair ! too Meany  idiots ! we are out numbered .

 So pick your allies wisely.....

[idahohuntr]

Wow...this kind of garbage would be hilarious...if it weren't so pathetic and sad. 

So...groups like Backcountry hunters, Trout Unlimited, and a senator who attached the rider to a budget bill to allow wolf hunting in Idaho and Montana are the enemy?  That is some powerful kool-aid. 

I imagine backcountry hunters support wilderness bills and very limited motorized access...which may be in conflict with other user group desires...but to suggest they are anti-hunting is laughable.

Laugh all you want, then please explain where all the unexplained dollars they have are coming from. 

Are you a member?

I am not a member...but I probably should join as I support responsible ORV use, backcountry opportunities, hunting access programs, and hunting and fishing: go see for yourself -  www.backcountryhunters.org 

What do you mean "unexplained dollars"??  Give me a break.  Anybody who listens to garbage put out by Toby Bridges should have their head examined anyways.  I don't care if Al Gore is writing the checks...show me where they are promoting something counter to the interests of public land hunters who enjoy the backcountry.

Last, why are you so opposed to Sen. Tester??  You re-post Toby Bridges garbage assailing the guy that de-listed wolves so they could be hunted/managed by ID and MT.  I simply don't understand that logic at all.

[bearpaw]

What do you mean "unexplained dollars"??  Give me a break.  Anybody who listens to garbage put out by Toby Bridges should have their head examined anyways.  I don't care if Al Gore is writing the checks...show me where they are promoting something counter to the interests of public land hunters who enjoy the backcountry.

This info has already been provided, perhaps you missed it.

Background

Backcountry Hunters and Anglers (BHA) represents itself as good-ole-boy outdoorsmen who simply want to hunt and fish and be left alone. But don’t be fooled. As evidenced by both its sources of funding and current leadership, BHA is nothing more than a big green activist organization pushing a radical environmentalist agenda.

Funding

When looking at BHA’s funding sources, it’s easy to forget they have anything to do with hunting and fishing at all. All of its primary donors have extensive ties to environmental activist organizations.

The largest donor is the Western Conservation Foundation, which gave $278,423 to BHA in 2011 and 2012 alone. WCF has given handsomely over the years to notorious environmentalists and animal rights activists, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Audubon Society, Earthjustice (the self-proclaimed “law firm of the environment”), and Climate Solutions, a major proponent of “global warming.” It has also contributed large sums to the Tides Center, funder of all things leftist. It’s hard to imagine Western Conservation Foundation would donate over a quarter of a million dollars to Backcountry Hunters and Anglers if it wasn’t an organization that shared those same ideological beliefs.

The next largest donor to BHA is the Wilburforce Foundation. From 2009 to 2013, Wilburforce gave a total of $110,000 to BHA for a variety of purposes. As with the Western Conservation Foundation, Wilburforce gives heavily to other notorious environmentalists, including the Environmental Law Institute, the Sierra Foundation, and the Union of Concerned Scientists. Wilburforce’s executive director, Tim Greyhavens, previously worked for the Humane Society of the United States, a vegan activist organization with a PETA-like agenda. BHA also received a $69,000 donation in 2012 from Pew Charitable Trusts, which is famous for its ideological tilt. Other donors include the New Venture Fund ($30,000 total), Conservation Lands Foundation ($26,000 total), Lazar Foundation ($25,000 total), and The Brainerd Foundation ($8,000 total), whose mission is “to safeguard the environment and build broad citizen support for environmental protection.” As with WCF and Wilburforce, each of these organizations have deep connections with the environmental movement, which raises suspicions as to what

Additionally I have heard BHA is working with Conservation Northwest, which is one of the biggest enemies of hunters in this state and has effectively shut down cougar hunting and is forcing too many wolves into Washington with their wolf plan.

Snowpack has done an excellent job of explaining many implications. Of course I don't expect you to understand any of this.

[bearpaw]

[Enviro groups will do what they can to get the land first, then kick off the non-desirables later.

Every one of them? Am I to accept at face value that every group with environmental concerns is anti hunting? That seems to be the implication of the article: BHA took money from some "environmental" groups, and that proves they are anti hunting?

If it matters to a person how their money and support is being used, I would advise checking into the groups that you choose to support since some groups have been created with ulterior motives. Before joining the most recent group that I joined (Foundation For Wildlife Management), I checked into who started it, for what purpose it was started, where the money is coming from, and what the money is being used for, I did not see any red flags.

I made this post to educate fellow hunters that some groups are not what they seem, it might be wise to ask groups these questions. When I asked BHA these questions, they did not provide any answers.

Well, I consider the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and the Mule Deer Foundation to be pro hunting environmental organizations. Heck I'd even put the Nature Conservancy and the Sierra Club on that list. They all do a great job of preserving wildlife habitat.

I would definitely agree with the RMEF and MDF, I have supported both of them too, along with many others. 

I don't have enough specifics at the moment regarding the Nature Conservancy or the Sierra Club to comment about them at this time.

I am suspect of groups that do not support this philosophy:
"Americans are systematically advocating, legislating, and voting away each others rights. Support all user groups and quit losing opportunity."

[Bob33]

I believe every responsible hunter has an obligation to support organizations that further the causes he believes in. As Dale has pointed out, names alone or slogans don't necessarily convey the organization's true mission. Thanks for the heads up.

I encourage hunters to do appropriate research before supporting, or choosing not to support an organization.

It's also important to recognize that many donors give to causes on both sides of an issue. GreenDecoys is critical of TRCP for accepting funding from the Turner Foundation. If you look at the list of funders for RMEF, you will find Turner Foundation on the list.  The David and Lucille Packard Foundation donated to TRCP according to GreenDecoys. They also contributed to RMEF.

In Washington, it's common for Boeing to give donations to both parties in an election.

Using selected donors as an indication of an organization's mission is helpful, but using it as conclusive evidence is risky, at best.

[JLS]

Is it no longer possible to be pro environment and also a hunter?

Apparently so Bob.  We can no longer be concerned as to whether a timber sale is responsible, or else we may be labelled anti-hunters.  We cannot even remotely consider that climate change may greatly impact future hunting.  We cannot ever remotely consider that there are shades of grey in the world instead of just black and white.

Instead of promoting any sort of collaborative effort to benefit us all, I think we should just continue to press for polarity.  It works out so well.

Toby Bridges is completely off of his rocker.  Denny Rehberg would have had the election completely sewed up if he had done ANYTHING to benefit the average sportsmen of Montana.  Instead, he covered for one of his aides who was being investigated for poaching and tried to deter people from legally using state land near Billings.

Jon Tester has done a good job for the sportsmen of Montana, and the US as a whole.

[JLS]

Here is the "radical" legislation from Tester.

http://www.hcn.org/issues/41.12/taking-control-of-the-machine/article_view?b_start:int=4

[JLS]

Heck I'd even put the Nature Conservancy and the Sierra Club on that list. They all do a great job of preserving wildlife habitat.

I would hope so, because the Nature Conservancy owns a good chunk of land in Central Washington that is open to public hunting.

This insinuation that the Teddy Roosevelt Conservation Partnership is anti-hunting is absolutely ridiculous.  They do some pretty good things if you ask me.

[billythekidrock]

I heard about Back Country Hunters a couple years ago and looked over their website. I thought about getting involved with them until I tried to figure out where all the money was coming from. I sent a message to their leaders asking questions about membership numbers and where all the money was coming from, it was never answered.

I suspect Toby may be right about this! 

Didn't one of your moderators own a backcountryhunters.com/.org website?

Pretty sure it wasn't a mod, but I do know that was before Dales ownership of HW.

[KFhunter]

People get on this site and pretend they're hunters then head over to the wolf threads all the time,  why is making a fake conservation group such a stretch?
Like the poster who posted a trophy picture, only it didn't belong to them.



Groups like these rely upon ignorant dollars to function, such irony to gather up sportsmen's dollars to use against them.  I bet they laugh every time someone cuts them a check.

[hunter399]

I agree not all groups seem like they pretend to be.I only have two groups i support.NRA because i like guns so much,and the RMEF because i like to see elk makeing a come back. Being a hunter and a pro environment is just conservation,take what you need leave the rest for somebody eles or next year.The national forest has become a joke.There logging and cutting back alot of are forests for fire danger though land stewerdship to mills and lumber companys which is good ,but what woulnd you rather have 200 acre spots here and there or big ski run type cuts going though big timber.I woulnd rather  have half acre runs running up though big timber.Gives the hunter lanes to glass,give wildlife habit,and fire breaks that we need.Good conservation gives everybody a little something.Its all about money these days national forest,hunting groups,and conservation.My grampa woulnd tell me that dam forest circus,still think thats true today.

[Bob33]

People get on this site and pretend they're hunters then head over to the wolf threads all the time,  why is making a fake conservation group such a stretch?

I don't think anyone denies it can and does happen. The question is how to determine what a specific organization's true objectives are.

[Elkaholic daWg]

Here is the "radical" legislation from Tester.

http://www.hcn.org/issues/41.12/taking-control-of-the-machine/article_view?b_start:int=4

Yup there's another bunch

"ATV groups are the worst threat to forest and overall ecosystem health in the West. Not only are they notorious for uncompromising insistence on their right to plow wherever they want to, but the impact of their actions is in practice potentially far worse than logging. Their exclusion from the table was a wise move. "

[idahohuntr]

People get on this site and pretend they're hunters then head over to the wolf threads all the time,  why is making a fake conservation group such a stretch?

I think this happens far less frequently than you imagine...it wasn't long ago when you were trying to paint me as an anti-hunter despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary.  I think in the absence of any real logic or data to support your position you and others like bearpaw resort to twisted conspiracies that only exist in your minds.     

I have yet to hear one thing BHA does that undermines the interest of public land hunters.  I understand some hunters who rely more on motorized vehicles might not like some of their positions...but please, give me some hard evidence of how they are undermining hunters.