meateater buying first lite

[dwils233]

@Bushcraft - do you have a list of politicians they've donated to?  I couldn't find it.

That's because (AS I HAVE CONTINOUSLY POINTED IN EVERY BHA THREAD ON THIS FORUM) they can't donate to politicians. Per the IRS:

"Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity.  Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes."

At this point, this is willful ignorance or intentional disregard for the facts consistently presented to this community regarding BHA. You don't like them- fine. You don't want to be a member- fine. but we are entitled to our own opinions, not our own facts. It is exhausting and frustrating to have to constantly retread this BS. and each time this who BHA/Land Tawney/Green Decoy thing comes up and I try to provide some basic clarifications of the FACTS, people with an axe to grind just gloss over it and cling harder to their own opinion or idea of the truth.


You know if this is how we treat the advocates (like Rinella) who are the people actually increasing hunting's relevancy, encouraging new hunters, and putting the best image of our sport out into the world, maybe we don't deserve them. This tiny, binary campfire that requires everyone to be in lockstep (by screaming and shouting down and calling people who don't agreee on everything the enemy of the sport) all the time will be the death of this sport long before the external factors destroy us by a thousand cuts. We are so quick to create divisions amongst ourselves and our allies. Calling people (say a new hunter) stupid sheep who are the enemy of hunting and/or socialists dedicated to the death of hunting and America for joining BHA is a quick way to push someone out of this lifestyle instead of bringing them further in. Don't be so toxic just because you have a different opinion or perspective, it will not help. Whole lot of people seemed to have ignored the technique for how you catch more flies and instead just roll out with vinegar. all. the. time.

[Bushcraft]

@Bushcraft - do you have a list of politicians they've donated to?  I couldn't find it.

That's because (AS I HAVE CONTINOUSLY POINTED IN EVERY BHA THREAD ON THIS FORUM) they can't donate to politicians. Per the IRS:

"Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity.  Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes."

At this point, this is willful ignorance or intentional disregard for the facts consistently presented to this community regarding BHA. You don't like them- fine. You don't want to be a member- fine. but we are entitled to our own opinions, not our own facts. It is exhausting and frustrating to have to constantly retread this BS. and each time this who BHA/Land Tawney/Green Decoy thing comes up and I try to provide some basic clarifications of the FACTS, people with an axe to grind just gloss over it and cling harder to their own opinion or idea of the truth.


You know if this is how we treat the advocates (like Rinella) who are the people actually increasing hunting's relevancy, encouraging new hunters, and putting the best image of our sport out into the world, maybe we don't deserve them. This tiny, binary campfire that requires everyone to be in lockstep (by screaming and shouting down and calling people who don't agreee on everything the enemy of the sport) all the time will be the death of this sport long before the external factors destroy us by a thousand cuts. We are so quick to create divisions amongst ourselves and our allies. Calling people (say a new hunter) stupid sheep who are the enemy of hunting and/or socialists dedicated to the death of hunting and America for joining BHA is a quick way to push someone out of this lifestyle instead of bringing them further in. Don't be so toxic just because you have a different opinion or perspective, it will not help. Whole lot of people seemed to have ignored the technique for how you catch more flies and instead just roll out with vinegar. all. the. time.

I agree with you for the most part and am a big fan of Rinella, but you're glossing over the point that I too end up having to state every time BHA squabbles come up.  Obviously, or perhaps not to some people, 501(c)3 orgs can't make direct contributions to political candidates. But, the funds that flow into the employees checking accounts of those orgs can absolutely be given to whoever they want, within the maximum allowable contribution constraints.  Pretty darn sure Land Tawney and his ilk aren't giving a dime to conservative politicians. 

Furthermore. it's not just about contribution money. 501(c)3 orgs can and do engage in soft-dollar lobbying. They can absolutely make their members aware of related arms-length non-profits like PACs. They can publicly question politicians and/or policies.  They can "soft-lobby" legislators by expressing their concerns and positions on legislation they agree or disagree with. Are they functioning like a 501(c)4 that can expressly endorse, or a 527 that can directly contribute? No, but...and particularly with the advent of social media...they can definitely push their bias to influence voters...which is why they exist in the first place.   BHA's national and state chapter Facebook accounts are/were heavily biased with lots of unchecked anti-GOP rhetoric, particularly prior, during and after the last general election. Whenever people spoke out or asked inconvenient questions, they were immediately banned or blocked.  Can't have their membership knowing uncomfortable facts about its leadership's left-wing political bias.  It's bad for business. 

So again...for the umpteenth time...there are far better alternatives that sportsmen can and should support. BHA would be last on the list...if at all. 

[dwils233]

But, the funds that flow into the employees checking accounts of those orgs can absolutely be given to whoever they want, within the maximum allowable contribution constraints.  Pretty darn sure Land Tawney and his ilk aren't giving a dime to conservative politicians. 

They can "soft-lobby" legislators by expressing their concerns and positions on legislation they agree or disagree with. Are they functioning like a 501(c)4 that can expressly endorse, or a 527 that can directly contribute? No, but...

Both of those points maybe true. (I have no idea how Land Tawney or any BHA employee spends their money but I doubt anyone else here does either) but that is still conflating 2 disparate ideas to say that "BHA donates to a list of bad politicians" and then say well, some employees probably donate a portion of their paycheck to bad politicians. Yeah that might be true, but it is still an unverified assumption and is not representative of the actual operations of the organizations finances as a 501c3. Yes they absolutely soft lobby, but that still doesn't mean they are donating to politicians.

I think a more effective tactic to pull people away from BHA than calling them all anti-hunters/easily duped idiots/ libruls AND that the organization is out to take away our guns and kill hunting, would be to point out how much more effective another organization might be doing in on the ground conservation work. Because honestly, BHA is great at social media and pint nights, but I don't see them helping put antelopes on the ground in WA (for example). Leading with that instead of an attack on BHA is more effective and sidesteps the confrontational or combative nature of trying to tear another org down.

[Special T]

But, the funds that flow into the employees checking accounts of those orgs can absolutely be given to whoever they want, within the maximum allowable contribution constraints.  Pretty darn sure Land Tawney and his ilk aren't giving a dime to conservative politicians. 

They can "soft-lobby" legislators by expressing their concerns and positions on legislation they agree or disagree with. Are they functioning like a 501(c)4 that can expressly endorse, or a 527 that can directly contribute? No, but...

Both of those points maybe true. (I have no idea how Land Tawney or any BHA employee spends their money but I doubt anyone else here does either) but that is still conflating 2 disparate ideas to say that "BHA donates to a list of bad politicians" and then say well, some employees probably donate a portion of their paycheck to bad politicians. Yeah that might be true, but it is still an unverified assumption and is not representative of the actual operations of the organizations finances as a 501c3. Yes they absolutely soft lobby, but that still doesn't mean they are donating to politicians.

I think a more effective tactic to pull people away from BHA than calling them all anti-hunters/easily duped idiots/ libruls AND that the organization is out to take away our guns and kill hunting, would be to point out how much more effective another organization might be doing in on the ground conservation work. Because honestly, BHA is great at social media and pint nights, but I don't see them helping put antelopes on the ground in WA (for example). Leading with that instead of an attack on BHA is more effective and sidesteps the confrontational or combative nature of trying to tear another org down.

Well said

[Jpmiller]

Rinella recently played up this whole "green decoy" thing on one of his recent podcasts. He was speaking at a BHA function but I quite enjoyed it.

[WildlifeAssassin]

I think a more effective tactic to pull people away from BHA than calling them all anti-hunters/easily duped idiots/ libruls AND that the organization is out to take away our guns and kill hunting, would be to point out how much more effective another organization might be doing in on the ground conservation work. Because honestly, BHA is great at social media and pint nights, but I don't see them helping put antelopes on the ground in WA (for example). Leading with that instead of an attack on BHA is more effective and sidesteps the confrontational or combative nature of trying to tear another org down.

A good point. I have been a member of close to a dozen orgs that are supposed to support hunting and wildlife. The only one that returned my calls and emails about volunteering was Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. They also put the funds to use securing access and protecting habitat. RMEF is the only one I currently support, or would recommend to those looking to help wildlife. 10% of this state is wilderness and no one is threatening that... however there is a proposed 5 square mile solar installation that will fence elk, deer and every other animal out of their winter range north of Ellensburg. Owned by EDF (the French government utility) and run from California to supply power to California... There are real threats to what we love all around and as much as we all disagree from time to time if we don’t work together we all might as well sell our rifles and buy golf clubs.

[Jpmiller]

But, the funds that flow into the employees checking accounts of those orgs can absolutely be given to whoever they want, within the maximum allowable contribution constraints.  Pretty darn sure Land Tawney and his ilk aren't giving a dime to conservative politicians. 

They can "soft-lobby" legislators by expressing their concerns and positions on legislation they agree or disagree with. Are they functioning like a 501(c)4 that can expressly endorse, or a 527 that can directly contribute? No, but...

Both of those points maybe true. (I have no idea how Land Tawney or any BHA employee spends their money but I doubt anyone else here does either) but that is still conflating 2 disparate ideas to say that "BHA donates to a list of bad politicians" and then say well, some employees probably donate a portion of their paycheck to bad politicians. Yeah that might be true, but it is still an unverified assumption and is not representative of the actual operations of the organizations finances as a 501c3. Yes they absolutely soft lobby, but that still doesn't mean they are donating to politicians.

I think a more effective tactic to pull people away from BHA than calling them all anti-hunters/easily duped idiots/ libruls AND that the organization is out to take away our guns and kill hunting, would be to point out how much more effective another organization might be doing in on the ground conservation work. Because honestly, BHA is great at social media and pint nights, but I don't see them helping put antelopes on the ground in WA (for example). Leading with that instead of an attack on BHA is more effective and sidesteps the confrontational or combative nature of trying to tear another org down.

Why would BHA be involved in putting antelope back on Washington? That doesn't seem to have anything to do with Backcountry hunting and angling.

[dwils233]

Why would BHA be involved in putting antelope back on Washington? That doesn't seem to have anything to do with Backcountry hunting and angling.

Neither does standing around a bar on pint nights. Or attending storytelling events in downtown Seattle.

I said "for example" as in, this is one such activity that people interested in conservation may want to engage in. There are many others. BHA doesn't offer a deep inventory of boots on the ground, field conservation work. So my point was instead of attacking BHA, why not reach out to some members and give them opportunity to do some field work and they might join other conservation orgs

[idahohuntr]

Why would BHA be involved in putting antelope back on Washington? That doesn't seem to have anything to do with Backcountry hunting and angling.

Neither does standing around a bar on pint nights. Or attending storytelling events in downtown Seattle.

I said "for example" as in, this is one such activity that people interested in conservation may want to engage in. There are many others. BHA doesn't offer a deep inventory of boots on the ground, field conservation work. So my point was instead of attacking BHA, why not reach out to some members and give them opportunity to do some field work and they might join other conservation orgs

Your advice is sound for those hellbent on attacking BHA - but for more moderate sportsman it is worth noting that we need good folks engaged in on the ground work and we need folks engaged on the policy and legislative front.  BHA focuses more heavily on the latter - and frankly - that can sometimes be far more important than on the ground local projects.  If pint nights and storytelling are needed to grow the base and increase their influence on the Hill as they fight bad policy like federal land transfers...well, pass me a pint!

[KFhunter]

For a guy that cries "Habitat! Habitat! Habitat!" all the time, I'm surprised that you'd say legislative efforts are more important than actual boots on the ground projects.


Or perhaps you're just carrying water for a .org (that you say you don't belong too) that doesn't actually do much other than legitimize leftist environmental nazi legislative efforts, they can say: "we even have the support of hunters through BHA"


Federal land transfer's are dead. kaput.  no one is discussing it and if a small faction on the right is discussing it they have no traction or pull. 
Seems BHA is irrelevant if all they can do is decry federal land transfers 

[dwils233]

This is why I hate getting involved in this conversation. Because I try to present a balanced, compromising perspective and then have to start flagging down stuff from both sides

-I think referring to people/policy as "leftists environmental nazi" is exactly the kind of binary, exclusionary attitude and language I was referring to as a way to force people on the fence further away from hunting as a sport, lifestyle or culture. Makes our campfire smaller, not bigger when we need to be bringing more people in, even if we only agree on 80% of things. Imagine a brand new adult hunter who started out listening to some Meateater Podcast and came here looking for a community, maybe got involved hunting through a BHA university chapter. This is how we greet them- attacks and assumptions about individuals we don't know

-Regarding BHA and pint nights/social media- I never said it was a bad thing. It's actually a great thing when we need pressure for LWCF for example to have an engaged and large base.

-I explicitly was referring to orgs/people hellbent on attacking BHA (I made the honey vinegar reference previously). I don't think moderate sportsman are confused by BHA's mission, or its shortcomings. I would be one of them

-Regarding "growing the base" BHA does that incredibly well but falls short on some of the more "meat and potatos" side of conservation for the average member. If we, as a hunting and angling population, can't find a way to offer that up better to young, active, new hunters then we will lose some important long games. I frequently refer to BHA as the dog that caught the tire....whats next?  Thats a question for BHA and other conservation orgs to think about

-finally, to return this all to the Rinella/FL place it started. I have to imagine it must get exhausting to have made a career out of the thing you love, to put so much energy into promoting this lifestyle and its relevance in the modern world and then to constantly be attacked as a anti-hunter/ ally of the enemy. Some people aren't just happy to watch someone fall, they want to throw a stick out there just to prove how right they are. I sure wouldn't want to be out in front of people just waiting to knife me in the back. It's not about being a fanboy of his, its about wanting people to have a great advocate for hunting in the public sphere

[KFhunter]

If BHA was clear about their mission and source of their funding we wouldn't have a problem with it.  Like I've said numerous times if a lefty wants to hunt great!  I'm inclusionary with that, but don't go create a shell of a .org group and pretend to be something its not in a backhanded effort to suck in hunters that don't necessarily want all those legislative efforts done on their behalf. 


We've went round and round and round on this, no one can tell me the funds BHA gets doesn't have strings leading back to environmental nazi groups. 
I don't buy it, all money comes with strings attached to it.

Furthermore no one has been able to prove Green Decoy's assertions aren't true; they attack the green decoy itself (sleazy lawyers IDH says) but they haven't discredited the veracity of the information provided. 

They who are supporting BHA on HW is actually trying to convince me and others here that all that money BHA gets comes free from strings     

 

[idahohuntr]

This is why I hate getting involved in this conversation. Because I try to present a balanced, compromising perspective and then have to start flagging down stuff from both sides

-I think referring to people/policy as "leftists environmental nazi" is exactly the kind of binary, exclusionary attitude and language I was referring to as a way to force people on the fence further away from hunting as a sport, lifestyle or culture. Makes our campfire smaller, not bigger when we need to be bringing more people in, even if we only agree on 80% of things. Imagine a brand new adult hunter who started out listening to some Meateater Podcast and came here looking for a community, maybe got involved hunting through a BHA university chapter. This is how we greet them- attacks and assumptions about individuals we don't know

-Regarding BHA and pint nights/social media- I never said it was a bad thing. It's actually a great thing when we need pressure for LWCF for example to have an engaged and large base.

-I explicitly was referring to orgs/people hellbent on attacking BHA (I made the honey vinegar reference previously). I don't think moderate sportsman are confused by BHA's mission, or its shortcomings. I would be one of them

-Regarding "growing the base" BHA does that incredibly well but falls short on some of the more "meat and potatos" side of conservation for the average member. If we, as a hunting and angling population, can't find a way to offer that up better to young, active, new hunters then we will lose some important long games. I frequently refer to BHA as the dog that caught the tire....whats next?  Thats a question for BHA and other conservation orgs to think about

-finally, to return this all to the Rinella/FL place it started. I have to imagine it must get exhausting to have made a career out of the thing you love, to put so much energy into promoting this lifestyle and its relevance in the modern world and then to constantly be attacked as a anti-hunter/ ally of the enemy. Some people aren't just happy to watch someone fall, they want to throw a stick out there just to prove how right they are. I sure wouldn't want to be out in front of people just waiting to knife me in the back. It's not about being a fanboy of his, its about wanting people to have a great advocate for hunting in the public sphere

Your points were all good...I wasn't trying to put you on defense...my intent was to complement what you said by making sure others didn't lose sight of the importance of the policy/legislative side of things.

[dwils233]

If BHA was clear about their mission and source of their funding we wouldn't have a problem with it.  Like I've said numerous times if a lefty wants to hunt great!  I'm inclusionary with that, but don't go create a shell of a .org group and pretend to be something its not in a backhanded effort to suck in hunters that don't necessarily want all those legislative efforts done on their behalf. 


We've went round and round and round on this, no one can tell me the funds BHA gets doesn't have strings leading back to environmental nazi groups. 
I don't buy it, all money comes with strings attached to it.

Furthermore no one has been able to prove Green Decoy's assertions aren't true; they attack the green decoy itself (sleazy lawyers IDH says) but they haven't discredited the veracity of the information provided. 

They who are supporting BHA on HW is actually trying to convince me and others here that all that money BHA gets comes free from strings     

I'm not going to retype this for you, from the last time:

"and as far the they tax reporting for BHA goes, their primary funding is from one line item "contributions/grants" most of the time funds/trusts, non-profits don't do blank contributions they give out money through grant cycles/requests."

and

"being awarded a grant is not the same as money laundering. if a organization that does veteran rehab/therpy by taking them hunting or fishing wins a grant from a pubic health non-profit, it doesn't mean they "laundered the money into a radical militant group" it means the veteran group wrote a proposal that the grant issuing body believes falls within the purview of the applications and awards."

I've worked in NGO's and my wife currently does. If her org gives money to a tribe for a public health program, their professional relationship may run deep, but the operational/organizational relationship does not allow her to dictate the tribe's affairs or vice versa. They simply have oversight over the aspect of the program funded by the grant to ensure it is being spent correctly or with the right results. If SCI were to win a grant for antelope reintroduction from sierra club, it doesn't make SCI a puppet of the sierra club beholden to their every whim and direction.

[full choke]

I love my First lite llano and Chama tops. Well, at least for as long as they last. They are super comfortable, but very fragile. I liked my Uncomphagre as well- but eventually sold it and went Sitka for puffy. Maybe Meateater can standardize First Lite sizing so you don't need an extra small of one item, and a XL T for the next layer...