Free: Contests & Raffles.
Quote from: bearpaw on February 17, 2014, 01:16:49 PMGroups and individuals who have protected wolves are directly responsible for these declines of elk and moose. Choose your groups that you support wisely or you will be contributing to the further decline of hunting opportunities one way or the other. There are numerous groups out there that seem only concerned about their particular passion and the rest of us are just collateral damage in their greedy determination to have it all their way. So based on this logic will you disavow any more of the garbage from Lobo watch and toby bridges??? I can not possibly understand why someone so anti-wolf as yourself could possibly support or even consider a guy like him anything but garbage when he assails the one US Senator with the will to de-list wolves so they could be managed by states like Idaho and Montana. If things were left to the federal judges there probably still would not be any wolf season...its insane to even suggest toby bridges or lobo watch has a shred of credibility on wolf issues.
Groups and individuals who have protected wolves are directly responsible for these declines of elk and moose. Choose your groups that you support wisely or you will be contributing to the further decline of hunting opportunities one way or the other. There are numerous groups out there that seem only concerned about their particular passion and the rest of us are just collateral damage in their greedy determination to have it all their way.
The rural people I know in MT disliked Tester and voted for Rehburg, Tester probably didn't have much choice but to support delisting if he wanted to remain in Montana politics, I'm sure he recognized that and it got him re-elected. He's a smart politician.I posted this topic to discuss groups that are supported by greenies that oppose many hunters and recreationists, like BHA, as usual you are thread jacking the discussion.
Thus far, I've yet to see where BHA is anti-hunting in any way, shape or form, unless you draw the parallel that supporting wilderness values is anti-hunting.
Backcountry Hunters and AnglersOne of the latest fronts in Big Green’s spider web FundersAnti-Development ... Anti-Energy ... Green RadicalsAt a GlanceEnvironmentalist activism is the name of the game at BHA, and hunters and anglers are just the camouflage. BHA has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from environmentalist groups, and BHA executive director Land Tawney has a history of liberal election activism.BackgroundBackcountry 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.FundingWhen 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 BHA’s motivations truly are.BHA LeadershipNot only do BHA’s primary donors have extensive ties to the environmentalist movement, but its leadership does as well. A number of top executives and board members currently work or previously worked for notorious environmental activists.Most prominent is BHA executive director Land Tawney, who ran the liberal political action committee (PAC) calling itself the “Montana Hunters and Anglers Leadership Fund” (MHA). In 2012, this pop-up PAC spent $1.1 million against Republican U.S. Senate candidate Danny Rehberg, who was challenging Democratic U.S. Sen. Jon Tester. The liberal MHA also spent $500,000 in support of the libertarian candidate as a strategy of drawing votes away from the Republican. MHA received several hundred thousand dollars from the League of Conservation Voters, a liberal environmentalist group. Tawney is also a member of the Montana Sportsmen for Obama Committee and previously served as the National Grassroots Coordinator for the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, which, like BHA, is an environmentalist front that poses as a hunter and fisher group.Taken together, BHA’s funding sources and leadership make clear that the interests of hunters and anglers are the least of their concerns. Environmentalist activism is the name of the game at BHA, and hunters and anglers are just the facade.
Quote from: JLS on February 18, 2014, 06:04:17 AMThus far, I've yet to see where BHA is anti-hunting in any way, shape or form, unless you draw the parallel that supporting wilderness values is anti-hunting.I don't see anything similar to the following written about SCI, RMEF, MDF, NRA, NWTF, or most other solid sportsman's groups, so take it how you like. For myself this throws up some red flags just as it would if drug cartels were the major donors. I doubt that green groups are donating large sums to support hunting opportunity. But obviously some people believe it which seems why these fringe sports groups are created by green activist groups! Draw your own conclusions!quote]
I don't see anything similar to the following written about SCI, RMEF, MDF, NRA, NWTF, or most other solid sportsman's groups, so take it how you like.
Safari Club has all sorts of issues, according to “ReformSafariClub”: http://reformsafariclub.com/
Safari Club International and Captive HuntingThe Humane Society of the United StatesApril 7, 2008Safari Club International accepts animals killed on captive hunts for inclusion in its record books. Captive or "canned" hunts are staged on game ranches where animals—sometimes exotic, tame species obtained from zoos and roadside circuses—are shot within fenced enclosures.Captive hunting is opposed by many hunters and hunting organizations. The Pope and Young Club and the Boone and Crockett Club both refuse to accept animals killed on captive hunts for inclusion in their record books. Others, such as the Orion Hunters' Institute and the American Hunters and Shooters Association, criticize the practice as unsporting.SCI's trophy record book is filled with animals killed on captive hunting ranches, including more than 2,000 shot on the 777 Ranch, in Hondo, Texas. This ranch boasts a wide range of exotic species confined in fenced enclosures, including addax, dama gazelle, ibex and markhor, who are all endangered.More than 1,000 captive hunting ranches offering domestic and exotic wildlife are located in some 25 states nationwide.
Quote from: bearpaw on February 18, 2014, 07:22:18 AMI don't see anything similar to the following written about SCI, RMEF, MDF, NRA, NWTF, or most other solid sportsman's groups, so take it how you like. It's actually not too difficult to paint any organization in a bad light if one chooses to be selective in what is presented.Safari Club has all sorts of issues, according to “ReformSafariClub”: http://reformsafariclub.com/RMEF retracted its vote on HR 1581, and supports wilderness. Are they anti-hunting because of this? http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/conservationist/2011/08/rocky-mountain-elk-foundation-retracts-support-anti-roadless-bill
QuoteSafari Club has all sorts of issues, according to “ReformSafariClub”: http://reformsafariclub.com/Yes they do. A big issue for me is SCI promotes "canned" hunts. And in general, SCI is probably the biggest proponent of the commercializations of wildlife.It's pretty bad when I have to agree with something the Humane Society says. QuoteSafari Club International and Captive HuntingThe Humane Society of the United StatesApril 7, 2008Safari Club International accepts animals killed on captive hunts for inclusion in its record books. Captive or "canned" hunts are staged on game ranches where animals—sometimes exotic, tame species obtained from zoos and roadside circuses—are shot within fenced enclosures.Captive hunting is opposed by many hunters and hunting organizations. The Pope and Young Club and the Boone and Crockett Club both refuse to accept animals killed on captive hunts for inclusion in their record books. Others, such as the Orion Hunters' Institute and the American Hunters and Shooters Association, criticize the practice as unsporting.SCI's trophy record book is filled with animals killed on captive hunting ranches, including more than 2,000 shot on the 777 Ranch, in Hondo, Texas. This ranch boasts a wide range of exotic species confined in fenced enclosures, including addax, dama gazelle, ibex and markhor, who are all endangered.More than 1,000 captive hunting ranches offering domestic and exotic wildlife are located in some 25 states nationwide.
Quote from: Bob33 on February 18, 2014, 08:00:44 AMQuote from: bearpaw on February 18, 2014, 07:22:18 AMI don't see anything similar to the following written about SCI, RMEF, MDF, NRA, NWTF, or most other solid sportsman's groups, so take it how you like. It's actually not too difficult to paint any organization in a bad light if one chooses to be selective in what is presented.Safari Club has all sorts of issues, according to “ReformSafariClub”: http://reformsafariclub.com/RMEF retracted its vote on HR 1581, and supports wilderness. Are they anti-hunting because of this? http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/conservationist/2011/08/rocky-mountain-elk-foundation-retracts-support-anti-roadless-billI looked at the link regarding SCI, appears to be nothing more than a dispute between a member and the organization management. That doesn't throw up the same red flags for me as I see with BHA? On this forum many hunters have complained about RMEF ignoring hunters needs and many hunters quit RMEF for some time, myself included. It appears RMEF saw what was going on and their new leader David Allen has definitely brought the organization back to supporting hunters better, as a result many hunters are rejoining RMEF.Hunters will make their own decisions on what orgs they feel support hunters best and then many will support those organizations who support hunters.
