Traitor - Ryan Busse

[Platensek-po]

Smells like a duck...

Yup. BHA board member...

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

https://www.backcountryhunters.org/board_of_directors

Don't see him on the board link above....

BHA sticks to their mission: public lands, the preservation and access to them. BHA does not dip into gun rights just like you wouldn't expect NRA to stand up for public lands.

Busse's opinion on guns is his and not BHA's. Just like Romney and Cheney's opinions are theirs, not the GOP.

He isn't anymore.  He was for years. As far as the rest of your statement. You can try to justify their actions or lack there of anyway you like. But I'm still done with them. Have been for a few years. Their top guys are not the kind of people I want representing me.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

You don't want the top guys representing you because they are willing to reach across the aisle and work with other groups? They should only work with groups who share 100% the same values across the board. Hmm... sounds reasonable. Digging in and toeing the party line has been super productive in this great country recently... let's continue to believe that the "others" are the enemy on every topic and not be subjective.

What actions did BHA take or not take that have you fired up? Were you upset when their board in CA had a huge role in stopping the bear ban in CA? What about the work they have done in eastern states to allow hunting on Sundays? Work they are doing in Washington to add new access and hunting opportunity? Did they lead the charge on the LWCF - something that every single user of this forum benefits from?

Were you upset when the NRA didn't take a stand on the transfer of public lands? I didn't hear anything from them when CA bear ban was proposed. Are they involved in fighting the push to remove any hunting besides subsistence hunting in two units in AK?

 Damn green decoys...

They don't reach across the aisle. They are already on the other side of the aisle.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Just curious but can you actually name something that they have done or advocated for that you are against? Or is it just that they took money from groups you don’t like? Would like to understand more as to what it is that is so repulsive about BHA

[Jake Dogfish]

Interesting. I almost want to grab a copy just to see what he has to say.

The book isn't released yet and it's written by an industry insider and lifelong hunter.  Interesting to see the rabid right jump on it without reading it...but not surprising.  Cancel culture at its finest.

[mburrows]

Smells like a duck...

Yup. BHA board member...

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

https://www.backcountryhunters.org/board_of_directors

Don't see him on the board link above....

BHA sticks to their mission: public lands, the preservation and access to them. BHA does not dip into gun rights just like you wouldn't expect NRA to stand up for public lands.

Busse's opinion on guns is his and not BHA's. Just like Romney and Cheney's opinions are theirs, not the GOP.

I used to think BHA was a good one to support but after reading up on their lack of actual hunting advocacy, wildlife management opinions and for the support that they accept from anti hunting and anti 2A I’ll never give them another dollar.

Outside of not being staunch, vocal supporters of the 2A (not their mission) and not wanting every wolf in North America dead, what issues do you have with their hunting advocacy and wildlife management?

Blanket statements are easy, nuance isn't.

I encourage you to look at who their biggest donors are.  Western Conservation Foundation who is staunchly anti hunting/sciences based wildlife management. WCF supports a number of anti hunting groups. Wilburforce was their next biggest donor who also supports extreme environmentalist grounds like the Sierra Foundation. Wilburforces exec director was an executive at the Humane Society of the United States (not your local humane society) who is a huuuge anti hunting and animals rights group.

Follow the money. Their loyalty will be to those donors not their members. By all means if you believe in what they say then hand them over your hard earned dollars. I’d rather hand mine to the mule deer foundation, RMEF and even TRCP.

[wasledman]

Smells like a duck...

Yup. BHA board member...

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

https://www.backcountryhunters.org/board_of_directors

Don't see him on the board link above....

BHA sticks to their mission: public lands, the preservation and access to them. BHA does not dip into gun rights just like you wouldn't expect NRA to stand up for public lands.

Busse's opinion on guns is his and not BHA's. Just like Romney and Cheney's opinions are theirs, not the GOP.

I used to think BHA was a good one to support but after reading up on their lack of actual hunting advocacy, wildlife management opinions and for the support that they accept from anti hunting and anti 2A I’ll never give them another dollar.

Outside of not being staunch, vocal supporters of the 2A (not their mission) and not wanting every wolf in North America dead, what issues do you have with their hunting advocacy and wildlife management?

Blanket statements are easy, nuance isn't.

I encourage you to look at who their biggest donors are.  Western Conservation Foundation who is staunchly anti hunting/sciences based wildlife management. WCF supports a number of anti hunting groups. Wilburforce was their next biggest donor who also supports extreme environmentalist grounds like the Sierra Foundation. Wilburforces exec director was an executive at the Humane Society of the United States (not your local humane society) who is a huuuge anti hunting and animals rights group.

Follow the money. Their loyalty will be to those donors not their members. By all means if you believe in what they say then hand them over your hard earned dollars. I’d rather hand mine to the mule deer foundation, RMEF and even TRCP.

Straight from the Green decoy website  ...the website created by oil lobbyists and their Pr Firm as a smear campaign against multiple Conservation organizations such as Backcoutnry Hutners & Anglers, Trout Unlimited, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, to name afew.

[mburrows]

Actually I got it from activist facts and from listening to some podcasts. Does the source of the information bother you or the information itself?

It cannot be disputed that accept large donations from anti-hunting groups and they are non-responsive to 2A issues.  Like I said, if you want to support them go ahead.  Ill give my money to those that support 2A and don't take dollars from anti hunting groups because well, follow the $$. Simple as that.

[idaho guy]

Actually I got it from activist facts and from listening to some podcasts. Does the source of the information bother you or the information itself?

It cannot be disputed that accept large donations from anti-hunting groups and they are non-responsive to 2A issues.  Like I said, if you want to support them go ahead.  Ill give my money to those that support 2A and don't take dollars from anti hunting groups because well, follow the $$. Simple as that.

   

  too many proven groups like rmef and mule deer foundation to even consider bha. Something is fishy with bha donors and even some of their positions so why bother.   

[Special T]

Actually I got it from activist facts and from listening to some podcasts. Does the source of the information bother you or the information itself?

It cannot be disputed that accept large donations from anti-hunting groups and they are non-responsive to 2A issues.  Like I said, if you want to support them go ahead.  Ill give my money to those that support 2A and don't take dollars from anti hunting groups because well, follow the $$. Simple as that.

   

  too many proven groups like rmef and mule deer foundation to even consider bha. Something is fishy with bha donors and even some of their positions so why bother.

I don't think RMEF or MDF are comparable. Neither are advocates for sportsmen, just animals habitat.  I think a better comparison is SCI and BHA as they are both advocacy groups.

[idaho guy]

Actually I got it from activist facts and from listening to some podcasts. Does the source of the information bother you or the information itself?

It cannot be disputed that accept large donations from anti-hunting groups and they are non-responsive to 2A issues.  Like I said, if you want to support them go ahead.  Ill give my money to those that support 2A and don't take dollars from anti hunting groups because well, follow the $$. Simple as that.

   

  too many proven groups like rmef and mule deer foundation to even consider bha. Something is fishy with bha donors and even some of their positions so why bother.

I don't think RMEF or MDF are comparable. Neither are advocates for sportsmen, just animals habitat.  I think a better comparison is SCI and BHA as they are both advocacy groups.

   

I agree sci is a better comparison but still I would give my money to SCI. I don't care what others donate too. A few too many stinky things around BHA for me to ever want to send them money. I get it that not everyone sees it that way   

[mburrows]

Actually I got it from activist facts and from listening to some podcasts. Does the source of the information bother you or the information itself?

It cannot be disputed that accept large donations from anti-hunting groups and they are non-responsive to 2A issues.  Like I said, if you want to support them go ahead.  Ill give my money to those that support 2A and don't take dollars from anti hunting groups because well, follow the $$. Simple as that.

   

  too many proven groups like rmef and mule deer foundation to even consider bha. Something is fishy with bha donors and even some of their positions so why bother.

I don't think RMEF or MDF are comparable. Neither are advocates for sportsmen, just animals habitat.  I think a better comparison is SCI and BHA as they are both advocacy groups.

I agree as well SCI is a good one I think sportsman alliance is too.

[Special T]

Actually I got it from activist facts and from listening to some podcasts. Does the source of the information bother you or the information itself?

It cannot be disputed that accept large donations from anti-hunting groups and they are non-responsive to 2A issues.  Like I said, if you want to support them go ahead.  Ill give my money to those that support 2A and don't take dollars from anti hunting groups because well, follow the $$. Simple as that.

   

  too many proven groups like rmef and mule deer foundation to even consider bha. Something is fishy with bha donors and even some of their positions so why bother.

I don't think RMEF or MDF are comparable. Neither are advocates for sportsmen, just animals habitat.  I think a better comparison is SCI and BHA as they are both advocacy groups.

I agree as well SCI is a good one I think sportsman alliance is too.

I like sportsmen alliance but they don't have much if any presence here. SCI has many chapters in the state and actually pulls a lot of political weight.

[bearpaw]

Overall SCI is about the best group there is, each chapter does a lot of different projects, the national follows the politics pretty well too! Just to clarify something about RMEF, they eventually got very active in getting wolves managed, RMEF still donate a large sum of money every year to the Idaho group that funds hunters and trappers to help manage wolves.
https://www.foundationforwildlifemanagement.org/

For example the next time you see a photo of antelope in WA, thank SCI!

[Special T]

Overall SCI is about the best group there is, each chapter does a lot of different projects, the national follows the politics pretty well too! Just to clarify something about RMEF, they eventually got very active in getting wolves managed, RMEF still donate a large sum of money every year to the Idaho group that funds hunters and trappers to help manage wolves.
https://www.foundationforwildlifemanagement.org/

F4WM is a great org. RMEF gave $ because they lost so many member over the wolf issue.

[BowLake]

Can anyone share something positive that the Green Decoys group, part of the Environmental Policy Alliance has done for hunters? The group was created by a lobbyist for the oil and gas industry.... particularly to run smear campaigns on groups who were opposing fracking on public land (TRCP & BHA) and the transfer of public lands to states.... seem fishy? Do the lobbyist in the oil and gas industry have hunters and wildlife's best interest in mind?

Here is a list from the BHA website of some of their corporate sponsors - many of which are firearm manufacturers.
First Lite
Go Hunt
Vortex
Gerber
OnX
Savage Arms
Thompson/Center (part of the Smith and Wesson Brand)
Weatherby
CVA
Federal Premium Ammo
Sitka
Weston
FHF Gear

Do you think these companies just throw money around or do their due diligence on who they are supporting and putting their logo on? 

By the way, RMEF is partnering with TRCP and BHA right now on a program to open landlocked public land for access to hunters. The Mule Deer foundation recently partnered with BHA on the Safe Passage 97 project in the Okanagan.

Do these partnerships taint the work that RMEF and MDF do in your eyes? Do you think they would work with BHA if they had a hidden agenda?

If you don't like the fact that there are people whose political ideologies don't align with yours that are part of these groups, great that's your right and you are entitle to it. But, I am not sure how I see how backing into political corners and pointing fingers is going to be a productive game plan for hunting moving forward, or anything for that matter.

[bearpaw]

Talk to the hunters and anglers in the eastern part of the country who can't get fuel to drive to go fishing or hunting, thanks to Biden closing down the keystone pipeline that will likely become more frequent across the country! We need oil and gas and the exploration and drilling and pipelines needed to obtain it. You better wake up tom the fact BHA is just a liberal front group that is essentially promoting preservation rather than conservation, pushing the democrat agenda, they definitely have their followers fooled into thinking they are for the greater good of sportsmen, I don't blame individual people for wanting to support our outdoors, but smart people want to know what the end game is really about with the groups they donate to! 

[bearpaw]

Overall SCI is about the best group there is, each chapter does a lot of different projects, the national follows the politics pretty well too! Just to clarify something about RMEF, they eventually got very active in getting wolves managed, RMEF still donate a large sum of money every year to the Idaho group that funds hunters and trappers to help manage wolves.
https://www.foundationforwildlifemanagement.org/

F4WM is a great org. RMEF gave $ because they lost so many member over the wolf issue.

Exactly correct, but I don't see BHA doing that!