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

[bearpaw]

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.

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. 

Toby must have stepped on your toes pretty good for you to hate him so much, a couple of you guys appear obsessed with trying to discredit him. I think he makes some good points, can't say I agree with everything, but he wants to save elk and restore hunting opportunity. Why are you against that? You and your wolf establishment heroes seem to support wolves and anti-hunters more than elk and hunting opportunity. Just sayin....

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. 

[JLS]

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. 

Given the fact that Senator Tester was a major focus of the article, it only seems logical that references to him would be a germane part of the conversation.

I'm sure he only co-sponsored the wolf delisting language to further his political career .  Maybe if Dennis Rehberg had done ANYTHING of any significance he could have furthered his.

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.

[bearpaw]

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.

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!

The following is written about BHA:  http://www.greendecoys.com/decoys/backcountry-hunters-and-anglers/

Backcountry Hunters and Anglers
One of the latest fronts in Big Green’s spider web

Funders
Anti-Development ... Anti-Energy ... Green Radicals

At a Glance
Environmentalist 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.

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 BHA’s motivations truly are.

BHA Leadership
Not 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.

[JLS]

Reading the "expose" from Greendecoy honestly makes me feel like I'm on the Lobowatch webpage.  It's a lot of vague accusations and allegations with no real substance or factual documentation of overt actions. 

[Elkaholic daWg]

 

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.

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]

Dale, he's never heard how to cook a live frog. As we know the first baby step is to lie to it

[Bob33]

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.

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

[Elkaholic daWg]

  Had anyone cared they would have noticed rmef disappeared from my signature about 2 1/2 years ago. Just why is it that hunters think it is only about hunting?
 And you can see below in Bobcats  post that Hunters don't agree with other hunters either. Some of these groups will use that against us in the endgame (Canned hunts aren't my thing either BTW).
 The enemy of my enemy is my friend  While the friend of my enemy will be held to much closer scrutiny.

[bobcat]

Safari 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.   

Safari Club International and Captive Hunting
The Humane Society of the United States
April 7, 2008
Safari 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.

[bearpaw]

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.

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

I 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. 

[bearpaw]

Safari 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.   

Safari Club International and Captive Hunting
The Humane Society of the United States
April 7, 2008
Safari 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.

I guess if you hate to see commercialization of wildlife it must be hard to watch so many people, companies, and agencies all making their living off wildlife. When you get right down to it, game wardens, biologists, hunting equipment manufacturers, tv shows, call makers, this website, etc, etc, are all based on the commercialization of hunting and wildlife. Just sayin.... 

I've hunted on some of the game ranches you reference and plan to hunt some of them again. I don't see anything wrong with the ones that offer challenging hunting opportunities. Not much different than fishing in a limited size body of water. 

[bearpaw]

If someone chooses to not hunt on game ranches I understand that, what I don't understand is why they want to prevent me or someone they don't even know from hunting there? 

Sorry for getting off topic... 

[Bob33]

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.

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

I 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. 

I don't personally have a problem with either. Every organization has flaws. My point is that if an organization has to be perfect in order to support it, you can't support anything. I try to weigh the good an organization does against the bad. If the good outweighs the bad, then it's worthy of consideration for supporting it.

I also don't think it's appropriate to use the opinion of one individual to make a decision. Toby Bridges doesn't like BHA. How many other hunters share his views? How many hunters support BHA?

It's unfortunate that with hunters being such a small minority of the population, we can't seem to agree among ourselves who to support. As a result, we have little influence.

[bearpaw]

I think because each of us have different values we will each look for different values and efforts in organizations. The organizations who please the largest number of hunters become the largest organizations representing hunters.

Fringe groups like BHA will alienate many hunters and other recreationists including myself and therefore will never be as popular with hunters as RMEF or SCI.

I fully understand there are some hunters who may want to support BHA, but it's pretty obvious where the bulk of their money comes from and what it's being used for, it's also pretty apparent not what the majority of hunters seem to want. BHA does seem to please the greenies and therefore has garnered the bulk of their financial support from those sources.