meateater buying first lite

[Jpmiller]

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

They're a niche group not an all encompassing conservation agency. Why do they need to be all things to all people? Why can't Backcountry hunters and anglers focus on Backcountry hunters and englers? Theyre goal is preservation amd expansion of access to recreation in the wilderness, I don't think boots on the ground is as important to that goal as legislative lobbying is.

[dwils233]

They're a niche group not an all encompassing conservation agency. Why do they need to be all things to all people? Why can't Backcountry hunters and anglers focus on Backcountry hunters and englers? Theyre goal is preservation amd expansion of access to recreation in the wilderness,

Seriously? That's not the end-all be-all of BHA. Even the mission statement isn't that narrow:

"Backcountry Hunters & Anglers seeks to ensure North America's outdoor heritage of hunting and fishing in a natural setting, through education and work on behalf of wild public lands and waters."

That leaves tons of room for things such as boots on ground conservation and plenty besides just wilderness areas. They hardly present themselves as niche- they refer to themselves as the voice for public lands, waters and wildlife. And when I say they, I include myself as a member too

[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     

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.

Thanks, I must have missed that last time. 

Maybe I should restate it in different words....Sierra Club et. al. would not donate or grant money to BHA if they didn't align physiologically in some way, Sierra Club etc is still beholden to their membership.

example: If Sierra Club donated or granted money to deplorables.org... there'd be hell to pay and they'd loose membership, much like RMEF felt immediate and long lasting pain for not taking a stance on the wolf issue. 


I never said BHA was a money laundering ord or that they had to do the bidding of its donors just because they gave em some cash.  BHA's alignment with its donors is the push for more wilderness, I've already said if a hunter wants that by all means, push for wilderness, join BHA. 

[Bushcraft]

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.

Alright...I guess we're down to using our professional backgrounds as a form of validity verification.

I've had C-suite level finance and operation positions, own and operate my own company, pushed through many-million dollar military contracts, sat across the table from many state and federal legislators, been VP and President of a number of different non-profits and have been a sitting board member and contributing member of several operational committees of one of the largest and most influential hunting advocacy and wildlife conservation 501(c)3 and (c)4 orgs on the planet for several years now.  If you want to talk high level finance, organizational governance and how politics actually works behind the scenes...I'm your guy. 

And so, while your statement is theoretically correct from one perspective, I humbly submit that the picture you've painted is somewhat naïvely rosy in the sense that it only paints one possibility when it comes to possible use and intent of funding flows, and the "strings" relating to that funding.  Yes, many non-profits petition for grants to obtain their "revenue".  Let's call that asking or "pulling" funds.

Even when it's pulled benefactors writing large checks ALWAYS have strings attached, written or inferred.

On the other hand, funding can very easily be "pushed" through to one or more non-profits (so they can engage in soft-lobbying) through a series of layers of other shell non-profits in order to disguise or hide who really wants an agenda pushed.  And that's why and how BHA and their ilk exist.  The funding "pushers" want more votes for the donkey party.  That's it. It's just that simple. It's not genius, or smart, difficult, or novel. It's stupid easy to pull off if you have the means. 

Don't think so???

First, review their primary funding sources.  Wyss Foundation. Wilburforce Foundation. New Venture Fund. Western Conservation Foundation. Packard Foundation. Hewlett Foundation. Pew Charitable Trusts.

All of these are controlled by very left-leaning enviro-whackos. You know, the sort that desperately want politicians like Jay Inslee, Bob Ferguson, Obama, Hillary, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Bernie Sanders, AOC and their ilk in power.

Second, Land Tawny, President and CEO of BHA, is also a leftist operative who ran the liberal political action committee (PAC) with an equally-deceptive name, Montana Hunters and Anglers Leadership Fund (MHA), which, spent $1.1 MILLION against Republican U.S. Senate candidate Danny Rehberg, who was challenging Democratic U.S. Sen. Jon Tester (you know, the lard ass that doesn't hunt and does whatever Obama, Pelosi and Reid have told him to do so he can keep the Democratic lobbying graving train flowing so he can stay in office and retain his vote). 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.

Then... (AND HERE'S THE KEY FOLKS!!!  ), ask yourself why BHA doesn't have funding sources from the conservative or libertarian side of the political spectrum or hunting and angling consortiums.

Hmmm. 

Seriously, connecting the dots really ain't all that hard folks. 

[cbond3318]

The Green Decoy campaign is getting pretty flimsy.

[KFhunter]

The Green Decoy campaign is getting pretty flimsy.

Did green decoy give false information against BHA?


That would be libel and subject to a lawsuit.

libel
1) the material is untrue.
2) the material is published
3) the false material is harmful

If those three things are met, then BHA has a big fat payout due to them from green decoy. 



So please elaborate how Green Decoy is wrong about the information published?   
I'm not defending green decoy as an entity, they probably are sleazy lawyers, but I would like to know how the information provided is untrue. 

[cbond3318]

The Green Decoy campaign is getting pretty flimsy.

Did green decoy give false information against BHA?


That would be libel and subject to a lawsuit.

libel
1) the material is untrue.
2) the material is published
3) the false material is harmful

If those three things are met, then BHA has a big fat payout due to them from green decoy. 



So please elaborate how Green Decoy is wrong about the information published?   
I'm not defending green decoy as an entity, they probably are sleazy lawyers, but I would like to know how the information provided is untrue.

You misunderstood. The Green Decoy info that is continually referenced over and over is being stripped of impact by BHA’s actions. It was a stretch to assert BHA as having ill intentions when it came out and it is now a leap of length years later. It’s getting flimsy.

I’ve been down this topic in length and this is as far as I’ll go this time. Have a good evening.

[baker5150]

They're a niche group not an all encompassing conservation agency. Why do they need to be all things to all people? Why can't Backcountry hunters and anglers focus on Backcountry hunters and englers? Theyre goal is preservation amd expansion of access to recreation in the wilderness,

Seriously? That's not the end-all be-all of BHA. Even the mission statement isn't that narrow:

"Backcountry Hunters & Anglers seeks to ensure North America's outdoor heritage of hunting and fishing in a natural setting, through education and work on behalf of wild public lands and waters."

That leaves tons of room for things such as boots on ground conservation and plenty besides just wilderness areas. They hardly present themselves as niche- they refer to themselves as the voice for public lands, waters and wildlife. And when I say they, I include myself as a member too

This should be noted as well....from their vision statement

“It’s time for national conservation groups from all corners of the continent to set aside differences in philosophy or politics. It’s time to shake hands. It’s time to get something done.”

I don’t read much into this statement, but it certainly asserts that they are open and willing to working with groups (and probably do) that would otherwise have a conflicting agenda or mission to that of a traditional hunting or fishing conservation group. 

[full choke]

Maybe the Meateater crew will push First Lite into a waterfowling series of clothing? That would be kinda cool.

Nevermind. Mods, feel free to remove this. I don't want to thread-jack...

[dwils233]

I think most people, even those who like first lite, are concerned about durability so waders would scare me. I do think the new brush pant is a great idea if it can take abuse. Performance upland gear is sorely lacking

[X-Force]

Alright...I guess we're down to using our professional backgrounds as a form of validity verification.

I've had C-suite level finance and operation positions, own and operate my own company, pushed through many-million dollar military contracts, sat across the table from many state and federal legislators, been VP and President of a number of different non-profits and have been a sitting board member and contributing member of several operational committees of one of the largest and most influential hunting advocacy and wildlife conservation 501(c)3 and (c)4 orgs on the planet for several years now.  If you want to talk high level finance, organizational governance and how politics actually works behind the scenes...I'm your guy. 

The best part is you baulked when I referred to you as elitist!

Well at least you admit to it now...

Keep talking down to people and trying to convince them that you have all the answers. Keep preaching to the choir.

[jackelope]

Did someone say ... habitat??

[Bushcraft]

Did someone say ... habitat??

Excellent!  It's a step in the right direction towards legitimacy.

[Platensek-po]

Gotta love hunters bashing each other over where money comes from that goes towards conservation. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. Conservation needs to be a bipartisan issue. If the only reason you believe in conservation is for hunting and fishing and not for wildlife in general, then I find you to be shallow and sad. Your hatred runs sooo deep that you would rather cut off your own foot then accept that others can do some good as well on certain issues. I don’t agree with everyone’s politics but that doesn’t mean that I would bash them for trying to help conservation efforts. Go bash each other over wether or not Obama is a radical leftist (wich given his politics and donors he clearly was not). No room for personal politics and bashing when we all want more conservation of wildlife and access to this places. And that conservation is not for me, it’s for my kids and their kids and everyone who wants to enjoy it. Bunch of angry school kids talking about whose dick is bigger over the internet.

[Bushcraft]

Gotta love hunters bashing each other over where money comes from that goes towards conservation. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. Conservation needs to be a bipartisan issue. If the only reason you believe in conservation is for hunting and fishing and not for wildlife in general, then I find you to be shallow and sad. Your hatred runs sooo deep that you would rather cut off your own foot then accept that others can do some good as well on certain issues. I don’t agree with everyone’s politics but that doesn’t mean that I would bash them for trying to help conservation efforts. Go bash each other over wether or not Obama is a radical leftist (wich given his politics and donors he clearly was not). No room for personal politics and bashing when we all want more conservation of wildlife and access to this places. And that conservation is not for me, it’s for my kids and their kids and everyone who wants to enjoy it. Bunch of angry school kids talking about whose dick is bigger over the internet.

Hahahahaha!

If you think Obama wasn't a radical leftist, then I've got some ocean front property in Arizona. From my front porch you can see the sea.  If you buy that I'll throw the Golden Gate in free.