Hunters Beware: Landlocking Public Access

[X-Force]

It is encouraging to see several folks pushing back against these tinfoil hat crowds labeling people as "green decoys".

I've enjoyed seeing Randy Newberg carry along his little green decoy rubber ducky.  There is no greater ambassador to public land hunters in this day and age....if hes a green decoy that just shows how insane these people are that push this green decoy bs.

Im with you. Randy Newberg and Steven Rinella are the best ambassadors we have.

[X-Force]

Greendecoys.com vs. BHA

greendecoys.com corporate sponsors....


BHA

Wilderness Athlete
Weatherby
Victory Archery
Traeger
RepYourWater
New Belgium Brewing
Camp Chef
Benchmade
Yeti
Vortex Optics
Under Armour
Sitka Gear
Seek Outside
Savage Arms
OnX
Leupold Optics
Kimber
First Lite
Filson

Traditional Bow Hunter
Stone Glacier
Sage
Kettle House Brewing
Elk Valley Bighorn Outifitters
Danner
Cooper Firearms
Blackcoffee Roasting
Alps Outdoorz

WorldCast Anglers
Wilderness Lite
Timber to Table
Princeton tec
Paladin
Mystery Ranch
fishpond
alpacka raft

Now who is pulling the wool of who's eyes?

[wolfbait]

Something sure as hell stinks..


Along with receiving nearly $280,000 in 2011 and 2012 from the Western Conservation Foundation—which also funds Natural Resources Defense Council and Earthjustice (the “law firm of the environment”)—BHA has received $165,000 from the Wilburforce Foundation in recent years, a Seattle group that also funds Greenpeace, the Sierra Club Foundation, and others. BHA also received $100,000 from the wealthy, radical, San Francisco-based Hewlett Foundation and nearly $60,000 from the environmentalist Pew Charitable Trusts for “policy” in 2012/13.


Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2014/08/irs-complaint-targets-backcountry-hunters-anglers/#ixzz5RZIFYobE

[X-Force]

Something sure as hell stinks..


Along with receiving nearly $280,000 in 2011 and 2012 from the Western Conservation Foundation—which also funds Natural Resources Defense Council and Earthjustice (the “law firm of the environment”)—BHA has received $165,000 from the Wilburforce Foundation in recent years, a Seattle group that also funds Greenpeace, the Sierra Club Foundation, and others. BHA also received $100,000 from the wealthy, radical, San Francisco-based Hewlett Foundation and nearly $60,000 from the environmentalist Pew Charitable Trusts for “policy” in 2012/13.


Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2014/08/irs-complaint-targets-backcountry-hunters-anglers/#ixzz5RZIFYobE

2014.... and the "research" for this story is from greendecoys.com... surprising.

[jmscon]

The green decoy press run is funded by big money that wants to end the LWCF, because of the taxes on oil and gas leases, and the fight to make public lands a private. Richard Berman is behind this and a other PR runs similar to the green decoy campaign.
The issues with access to public property is not from groups buying public property and closing it off, its land owners fed up with the crap the public does on their land to get to public property. Roads getting closed that were never public to begin with, people getting locked out of private timberlands, etc.
To the OP’s story, that article is all over the place trying to link all of these organizations together is ridiculous!
OnX working with organization to locate these landlocked public lands and making it easier to work on getting easements, whether they are new or historic, is a huge accomplishment! The checkerboard of public and private land that is mentioned is evident all over the west! In the cascades with NF and private timber companies, all over the state with state trust, DNR, BLM and most of the other western state have the same thing going on. Some is accessible and some is not.

[fireweed]

Those old easements of trails should still be intact.... IF there was the will to push to keep it.

I did find a few easements for some pieces old trails BUT the roads to the trailheads don't have USFS easements.  I suppose you could parachute in and land on the trail, then it would be ok.  Other trails needs some more digging to see if they ever had on-paper easements. 

[wolfbait]

Something sure as hell stinks..


Along with receiving nearly $280,000 in 2011 and 2012 from the Western Conservation Foundation—which also funds Natural Resources Defense Council and Earthjustice (the “law firm of the environment”)—BHA has received $165,000 from the Wilburforce Foundation in recent years, a Seattle group that also funds Greenpeace, the Sierra Club Foundation, and others. BHA also received $100,000 from the wealthy, radical, San Francisco-based Hewlett Foundation and nearly $60,000 from the environmentalist Pew Charitable Trusts for “policy” in 2012/13.


Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2014/08/irs-complaint-targets-backcountry-hunters-anglers/#ixzz5RZIFYobE

2014.... and the "research" for this story is from greendecoys.com... surprising.

Why do you suppose BHA would try to hide the fact that they had received money from radical environmental groups? Is BHA just a false front for another environmental group?

[cbond3318]

These smear articles (Green Decoy) all hang their hat on 2 things, a portion of funding from conservation/environmental groups and the money spent in oppostion to Republican U.S Senate candidate Denny Rehburg in 2012, fun fact, MHA also supported the libertarian candidate. It makes perfect sense they would want Denny to lose after learning of his point of view and treatment of public lands as his own, he was dangerous. That action is inline with what they represent, access and protection of our public lands regardless of political party.

So what they have recieved money from Environmental/Wildlife/Conservation groups , it is obvious there is common ground. Protection of our public land, wildlife and resources.

We should be able to see beyond party lines and through this loose crap Green Decoy and all the other regurgitated articles keep banging away at. If, where some of the funding came from is an issue for you and the ACTIONS of BHA, TRCP and the alike don't speak loud enough for you, don't support it, there are plenty of us that will. 

[dwils233]

Something sure as hell stinks..


Along with receiving nearly $280,000 in 2011 and 2012 from the Western Conservation Foundation—which also funds Natural Resources Defense Council and Earthjustice (the “law firm of the environment”)—BHA has received $165,000 from the Wilburforce Foundation in recent years, a Seattle group that also funds Greenpeace, the Sierra Club Foundation, and others. BHA also received $100,000 from the wealthy, radical, San Francisco-based Hewlett Foundation and nearly $60,000 from the environmentalist Pew Charitable Trusts for “policy” in 2012/13.


Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2014/08/irs-complaint-targets-backcountry-hunters-anglers/#ixzz5RZIFYobE

2014.... and the "research" for this story is from greendecoys.com... surprising.

Why do you suppose BHA would try to hide the fact that they had received money from radical environmental groups? Is BHA just a false front for another environmental group?

I don't see how its been hidden....apparently if its true they don't seem too concerned with hiding it if you are finding it on the web that easily. I might be upset if they were giving money to "anti-" groups- but isntead they seem to be actively taking money that also could have gone to greenpeace instead so whats the problem with that 

Finally instead of constantly invoking the same tired and repeated arguments from greendecoys...I'd like to see a response to the comment outlining the BHA corporate sponsors (and hunting leaders like Rinella and Newberg) Do you think those are all front companies trying to destroy hunting as we know it? Or are these successful outdoor companies (and their investors, boards of directors, company management, and hook/bullet employees) somehow being deceived into the BHA long-con to destroy hunting? Is Randy Newberg the anti-hunting manchurian candidate or a complete idiot who is being fooled by BHA? I just fail to see how this all adds up when you look at it through those kind of lenses.

Finally- all this assumes one of two things. either a) most members of BHA are anti-hunting and the leadership reflects that or b) most members of BHA are pro-hunting but the leadership is not. If the BHA leadership is so anti-hunting the members will figure it out and either leave or change it. Conversely, if the membership is so anti-hunting- well I  don't think those BHA people I have spent time with me in the field, taken me to their honey holes, taught me to be a better hunter and woodman, shared hunting stories with and got to know at various gatherings in multiple states indicate that to be the case.

[jackelope]

The guys that don't like BHA seem to not like BHA because of the whole pro-wilderness thing. I can't help but wonder if they throw around all the anti-BHA stuff because they're worried about BHA working towards more designated wilderness. I get the whole multi-user group access thing, but it seems like BHA is doing more to promote public land staying public in general than anything else.

@wolfbait  and @bearpaw  ......... Since you 2 seem to be outspokenly against BHA, what organizations or groups that you guys support are working towards keeping public land public?  Please name the organizations you guys support or are in favor of that are working to maintain public access.

[bearpaw]

I agree that Rinella and Newberg are great ambassadors for hunting. I agree that we need to prevent any net loss of public lands. I agree that we need to find ways to access landlocked public lands, those lands belong to all of the people of the United States. I think most of us agree on these points!

However, depending on your political views, I think it brings up serious questions for some hunters when you look at the leadershiip of BHA, where big donations are coming from, and where big money is being spent by BHA in politics. Rheeberg lost to Tester with the support of BHA, then Tester voted for almost all of Obama's policies. You can thank Tester for the Obamacare mess not to mention many other Obama policies! Yes, I do understand some of you support Obama and the democratic party and I understand many issues are important to us regardless of our political leanings.

But it's not at all crazy to question the underlying political objectives of BHA. Look how long people believed everything on major news media, now we have learned that many of the leading news sources completely made up or altered news stories and refused to report some stories for the political benefit of certain candidates. We've also learning that the FBI actually tried to impact the last presidential election.

I don't think it's crazy at all to question the objectives of a group that has questionable connections and given the extent to which political bias is being perpetuated in all facets of our lives. I suppose maybe it's just a difference in political views as to weather BHA's leaders and funding sources are questionable. It makes sense that if you support the democratic party and Obama policies that you would not mind your BHA dollars going for political campaigns of democrats or to split the Republican vote so the democrat win, it seems that is being admitted. I have to admit that I don't mind and I strongly support the NRA spending money on the political campaigns of candidates friendly to the 2nd Amendment and I would support other organizations if they wanted to spend money on candidates that support hunting, but many orgs don't get politically involved, their dollars are directed toward wildlife. So I understand those who support BHA knowing they are a left leaning politically motivated organization.

However, I do see a difference with the NRA verses BHA, the NRA openly admits that they are spending money to elect pro-firearm politicians. It almost seems like BHA is trying to hide that they support left wing politicians? Does that mean BHA is all bad, certainly not, but at the same time I'm not wanting my sporting dollars supporting candidates of the party that wants to limit the 2nd Amendment and in many cases the party that has restricted hunting and the 2nd Amendment, the party that eliminated or limited hound hunting and trapping in Washington, Oregon, Colorado, California, and has attempted to do so in many other states.

[jackelope]

So what org's are you supporting that are fighting to keep public lands public?
I'm pretty sure the NRA isn't involved in any of that, but I could be wrong. FWIW I am a member of the NRA.

[cbond3318]

It is not about political party! It is about protection of our Public Land, Wildlife and resources , period, Rehburg was a threat to that. End of story.

Here is a statement made by BHA  following the election of President Trump.

https://www.backcountryhunters.org/backcountry_hunters_anglers_statement_on_the_u_s_presidential_election_results


Backcountry Hunters & Anglers’ Statement on the U.S. Presidential Election Results

MISSOULA, Mont. – In the wake of a presidential election characterized by unprecedented conflict and vitriol, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers urged sportsmen to look forward: uniting in support of shared values, sound natural resources management and American public lands.

BHA President and CEO Land Tawney issued the following statement:

“BHA stands for the public lands sportsman, for conservation of important lands and waters, for continued public access to our most valuable of resources. These values are not owned by any party, and they have historically been championed by leaders on both sides of the political aisle.

“Following an unprecedentedly contentious presidential election and many hard-fought congressional races, we look forward to returning to a set of shared values: our belief in America’s lands and waters, our outdoor traditions, and enabling every citizen to avail themselves of opportunities to enjoy our public lands.”

In July, the Republic National Committee’s platform panel endorsed an amendment promoting the transfer of public lands to individual states. Tawney today commented on this decision:

“A party that calls for the sale/transfer of public lands in its platform now has control of the House, Senate and presidency. We are encouraged that President Elect Trump, along with some courageous House and Senate Republicans, have broken from their party on this issue. We look forward to their continued rejection of the privatization of public lands and instead tackling other pressing issues such as wildfire management and declining budgets that face our public lands.”

BHA National Board Member Mike Schoby, editor of Petersen’s Hunting, interviewed Trump in January about his views on issues important to sportsmen. From the article:

“When it came to hunters’ rights and federal land sales, Donald Trump didn’t waffle, stating that a USFWS director appointed by him would ‘ideally be a hunter’ and under his watch there would be no sale of public Western lands.”

Tawney stressed the importance of the new administration appointments of key cabinet positions that represent sportsmen’s interests:

“Mr. Trump’s sons are public lands hunters, and sportsmen appreciate the insight they have and will continue to offer on decisions critical to our outdoor heritage. BHA relishes the hard work that lies ahead, and we look forward to working with all our elected leaders to conserve our backcountry lands and waters, uphold our sporting legacy and, above all, keep public lands in public hands.”

[jackelope]

It seems as though at least some of the Trump family are/were members of BHA. Weird.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-energy-202/2017/10/17/the-energy-202-this-hunter-helped-zinke-get-his-job-now-he-says-zinke-is-putting-our-public-lands-at-risk/59e5280c30fb041a74e75dba/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.617fde366164

[dwils233]

I agree that Rinella and Newberg are great ambassadors for hunting. I agree that we need to prevent any net loss of public lands. I agree that we need to find ways to access landlocked public lands, those lands belong to all of the people of the United States. I think most of us agree on these points!

However, depending on your political views, I think it brings up serious questions for some hunters when you look at the leadershiip of BHA, where big donations are coming from, and where big money is being spent by BHA in politics. Rheeberg lost to Tester with the support of BHA, then Tester voted for almost all of Obama's policies. You can thank Tester for the Obamacare mess not to mention many other Obama policies! Yes, I do understand some of you support Obama and the democratic party and I understand many issues are important to us regardless of our political leanings.

But it's not at all crazy to question the underlying political objectives of BHA. Look how long people believed everything on major news media, now we have learned that many of the leading news sources completely made up or altered news stories and refused to report some stories for the political benefit of certain candidates. We've also learning that the FBI actually tried to impact the last presidential election.

I don't think it's crazy at all to question the objectives of a group that has questionable connections and given the extent to which political bias is being perpetuated in all facets of our lives. I suppose maybe it's just a difference in political views as to weather BHA's leaders and funding sources are questionable. It makes sense that if you support the democratic party and Obama policies that you would not mind your BHA dollars going for political campaigns of democrats or to split the Republican vote so the democrat win, it seems that is being admitted. I have to admit that I don't mind and I strongly support the NRA spending money on the political campaigns of candidates friendly to the 2nd Amendment and I would support other organizations if they wanted to spend money on candidates that support hunting, but many orgs don't get politically involved, their dollars are directed toward wildlife. So I understand those who support BHA knowing they are a left leaning politically motivated organization.

However, I do see a difference with the NRA verses BHA, the NRA openly admits that they are spending money to elect pro-firearm politicians. It almost seems like BHA is trying to hide that they support left wing politicians? Does that mean BHA is all bad, certainly not, but at the same time I'm not wanting my sporting dollars supporting candidates of the party that wants to limit the 2nd Amendment and in many cases the party that has restricted hunting and the 2nd Amendment, the party that eliminated or limited hound hunting and trapping in Washington, Oregon, Colorado, California, and has attempted to do so in many other states.

Just to speak to a distinction between BHA and NRA- They are different types of non-profit, with BHA being a 501c3 and NRA being a 501c4. Not to get overly technical but I believe that means while the NRA can be directly involved in political campaigns and donations to elections, as well as lobbying and endorsements, the BHA cannot. I tihnk in this conversation its important to make this distinction because the BHA cannot actually do some of the things its being accused of. Sure Tawney might make another group that does it, and he or others might support a candidate, but BHA doesn't do it. I just don't want anybody to think that BHA can do what the NRA does in regards to the capacity/level of politicking