Post by: bearpaw on February 15, 2014, 02:02:05 AM
Wolf Lies!
Editorial News/Press Release
February 15, 2014
The Wolf Hide Is Being Pulled Down Over The Sportsman's Eyes!
By Toby Bridges, LOBO WATCH
Remember that line from the 1973 Gordon Lightfoot hit song Sundown? Whether or not you do, it's a good bet that many Northern Rockies sportsmen, rural residents, ranchers and those who work in the outdoors have come to know the feeling all too well. Since about the time this song hit the airwaves, their outdoor lifestyles have been under constant attack. They've been repeatedly lied to, stolen from, and forced out of their beloved outdoors - and the lion's share of that subterfuge has come from the very same elected officials they've put into office and government agencies entrusted to do the right thing to protect and preserve the lifestyle they've chosen.
One thing is for certain, these days you cannot trust anything to be exactly what it has been proclaimed to be - and that is especially true when it comes to almost everything regarding the environment. It doesn't take a genius to realize that much of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming is no longer teaming with the abundance of wildlife that roamed the northern stretches of the intermountain West 30 to 40 years ago. Likewise, reasonably easy access to millions of publicly owned acres of land has also been lost at an equally alarming rate. What makes all of these losses even more perplexing to those who have witnessed the changes is that it has all been orchestrated by our government and purposely instrumented by federal and state agencies - in the name of making the environment better.
Think back, in 1973 the Endangered Species Act was also signed into law, and a number of wildlife and plant species were quickly listed as "endangered" ...and put under federal protection. That's when the theft, lying and manipulation of both science and the American public began. This one environmental act also opened the door to a new and very lucrative scam - fighting and suing the U.S. government by an ever growing number of so-called environmental groups or organizations, such as Defenders of Wildlife and the Center for Biological Diversity.
The gray wolf became the poster child for these groups, and to cater to the environmental whims of very few U.S. citizens, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service blatantly lied about the need to save this not-so-endangered species, literally stole tens of millions of dollars to implement a fact plagued wolf recovery project, and openly violated the Endangered Species Act by dumping a non-native and non-endangered Canadian wolf right into areas inhabited by a truly endangered native subspecies of the wolf. Ever since, that agency and the state wildlife agencies in Montana and Idaho have continued to commit the greatest act of fraud ever pulled off in this country.
At the start of the Northern Rockies Wolf Recovery Project, these wildlife agencies and environmental groups all claimed that an abundance of wolves would result in far healthier big game herds. Instead, we now have millions of acres that are nearly totally void of elk, moose and other big game. Even Yellowstone National Park has lost 70- to 80-percent of the elk numbers and upwards of 90-percent of the moose population that was found there before the first of those Canadian wolves were released in 1995. On top of that loss, to provide the corridors needed so wolves and a growing number of grizzly bears can freely spread into other areas, the U.S. Forest Service joined in on the slaughter of wildlife and began closing off road access into millions of acres, in a sense creating a number of "semi-wilderness" areas.
Backcountry Hunters & Anglers is a political environmental group hiding behind a sportsman facade, MT Senator Jon Tester politically tied to environmental activism. This LOBO WATCH expose shares a frightening look at how groups like Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, Trout Unlimited, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, and others are nothing more than environmental groups hiding in sportsmen's clothing. - Many Sportsmen Organizations ARE NOT What They Claim To Be...Some Strongly Support Anti-Hunting Environmental Groups!
Today, those areas and the even more remote truly wild areas that make up the 27 National Wilderness Areas found in Montana and Idaho are the greatest expanses of wildlife wastelands found in America today. So, where are all of those healthier herds of elk...the strong and healthy moose populations...or vigorous populations of deer and other game? Could it be that we've had the wolf hide pulled over our eyes?
Still, we have one elected official in Montana who feels we need to add more wilderness to those dead zones. U.S. Senator Jon Tester (D) (shown in photo at right) recently pushed to have his so-called Forest Jobs and Recreation bill signed into law. On the surface, the bill promises new life for the timber industry, opening up a few areas to logging. But most Montana residents now fully realize that as soon as that bill is implemented, environemental groups will begin their attack to end that logging. The trade off is nearly 700,000 acres of National Forest that would be permanently given "Wilderness" status. When it is, reasonable access into this land will be closed, also making predator control far more difficult. That is exactly what the environmental groups want - and it seems they have Jon Tester tucked away nicely in their pocket.
So, what is the real agenda of this bill? The same agenda as establishing all those other wilderness areas and large closed areas of publicly owned lands - to push people out, to keep people off the land. It's all part and parcel to the agenda of the Wildlands Network...the total rewilding of the West, one parcel of land at a time.
Backcountry Hunters & Anglers is a political environmental group hiding behind a sportsman facade, MT Senator Jon Tester politically tied to environmental activism. This LOBO WATCH expose shares a frightening look at how groups like Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, Trout Unlimited, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, and others are nothing more than environmental groups hiding in sportsmen's clothing. - Many Sportsmen Organizations ARE NOT What They Claim To Be...Some Strongly Support Anti-Hunting Environmental Groups!
Senator Tester's close ties with those groups is extremely evident. During the 2012 elections, a spurious "sportsman" organization calling itself Montana Hunters and Anglers pumped in some $1.6-million of non-disclosed funds to help get Tester re-elected and to air attack ads against MT U.S. Representative Denny Rehberg (R) who was running for Tester's Senate seat. So...who is Montana Hunters and Anglers, and where did they come up with that kind of money to support Jon Tester's re-election?
Camouflaged as a sportsman's organization, Montana Hunters and Anglers is nothing more than a political activist organization with a very radical environmental agenda. Much of their funding came from the same environmental groups which have fought to close access to much of Montana's public lands. That group was headed by Land Tawney, of Missoula, MT (shown in photo at left) - who has had extremely close ties with the state's Democrat party. Tawney has also served as a member of the Montana Sportsmen for Obama Committee and sat on Tester's Sportsmen's Advisory Panel.
Today, Land Tawney heads yet another new organization known as Backcountry Hunters and Anglers - which continues to have the same political environmental agenda. This pseudo sportsman group receives most all of its funding from anti-development, anti-energy foundations, including the Western Conservation Foundation, which also pumps politically earmarked funding into Trout Unlimited, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, and the Bull Moose Sportsman Alliance. If you think these are true sportsman organizations, you need to brush up on them, and one of the best places to start is the new Green Decoys website built and maintained by the Center for Consumer Freedom at - www.greendecoys.com (http://www.greendecoys.com)
In recent years Montana has had more than its fair share of phony sportsmen groups and organizations. Another that came to life this past election year was the Montana Sportsmen Alliance. The group is little more than a political activist front for the Montana Wildlife Federation, which is a state chapter of the National Wildlife Federation - which claims to be the country's leading advocate for more wolves and grizzly bears. While the Montana Wildlife Federation proclaims to be a leading proponent for greater public access to publicly owned lands, the organization is also quick to get on board with access closures under the facade of protecting habitat and travel corridors for endangered species.
There are dozens of less than honest sportsman organizations in this country today that have a well hidden politically motivated agenda. Before joining the membership of any group or organization which claims to be fighting for or protecting the right to hunt and fish, and especially before making any sizeable donation to such a group, do your homework. Know who and what they really are, and know their agenda.
When it comes to Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, the Green Decoys website proclaims, "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."
There's a lot of dirty money being thrown around - find out who's pocket your elected officials may be in, and if they are on the take, make a real effort to see that they are not re- elected.
All Rights Reserved.
Toby Bridges
http://www.lobowatch.org (http://www.lobowatch.org) - lobowatch1@gmail.com
Post by: bearpaw on February 15, 2014, 02:20:34 AM
I suspect Toby may be right about this! :dunno:
Post by: huntnphool on February 15, 2014, 05:35:13 AM
I heard about Back Country Hunters a couple years ago and looked over their website. I thought about getting involved with them until I tried to figure out where all the money was coming from. I sent a message to their leaders asking questions about membership numbers and where all the money was coming from, it was never answered.Didn't one of your moderators own a backcountryhunters.com/.org website? :rolleyes:
I suspect Toby may be right about this! :dunno:
Post by: wolfbait on February 15, 2014, 10:14:42 AM
The Sky Island Alliance, Nature Conservancy, New Mexico Wilderness Alliance and Wildlands Project affiliation is similar to an intricate puzzle. With your permission, I’ll try to explain the organizations and individuals involved in this collaborative effort - one piece at a time.
Having just returned from an Aldo Leopold Forum on El Lobo in Las Cruces, New Mexico, I felt it was time to address why we’re not making any progress in resolving conflicts between those who would like to see wolves running wild and those who would like to protect their economic investments. Designed to bring all the stakeholders to the table, the forum gave everyone an opportunity to lay their cards on the table and make their cases. I wondered, however, how many were really listening and what was achieved?
I’ve attended many a wolf meeting beginning with the scoping meetings for the recovery plan in 1995. Through the years I’ve sensed a majority of the people - at least 95% by personal observation - would like to see respect for each other’s positions and some semblance of “working together” for the betterment of the species, as well as those who are economically impacted by the wolves.
From the very beginning, however, the reintroduction effort has been plagued by an agenda, pseudo-science and faulty history. Based mainly on emotionalism, the program is doomed to failure, unless everyone starts caring about what’s best for the animals, not just their agenda. How did emotionalism gain the moral high ground in the debate?
Environmental groups chose to use university students for their experiment in social responsibility. Finding fertile ground in academia - rebels looking for a cause, and causes looking for rebels - wolf proponents denied historical evidence that wolves kill domestic animals, including horses, cattle and pets; that wolves were known to kill for the sheer pleasure of killing, not just for survival; and that wolves were exterminated by federal and state agencies, following the advice of leading wildlife biologists, including Aldo Leopold. Instead, they chose to demonize the ranching industry and gained ascendancy by essentially rewriting history to support their agenda to remove cattle ranchers from the West.
Once they had the students retrained, they set out to bring them to every wolf meeting that was held in close proximity to a university. Hiring buses to transport them, the students then booed, heckled and “wolf called” anyone who dared to question the wisdom of reintroducing wolves back into the tender desert environment.
The strategy employed by the environmental community is not new. Known as anarchy, the ultimate goal is to confuse the issues and, ultimately, to impose the will of a small minority upon the majority.
Every movement has its radical fringe groups. Joseph Farrah, editor of World Net Daily, likens the radical environmental movement to “green fundamentalists” that holds to be “self-evident the untruth that there is no difference between a child, a tree and a rock”.
This ideology also seeks to move man out of any area that has been targeted for inclusion into a wilderness preserve. Although this is a very radical strategy for most wolf proponents, one must view it as a part of the greater strategy.
As indicated by David Brower, Sierra Club’s first executive director, in an interview with E magazine in 1990, the environmental system was built to move the Sierra Club out of the radical movement and into the mainstream movement. “The Sierra Club made the Nature Conservancy look reasonable. Then I founded Friends of the Earth to make the Sierra Club look reasonable. Then I founded Earth Island Institute to make Friends of the Earth look reasonable. Earth First! now makes us look reasonable. We’re still looking for a group to come along and make Earth First! look reasonable.”
Funded by government grants and foundational giving so many groups have now been organized that the Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy and even Earth First! appear reasonable alternatives.
At the El Lobo forum I was smitten with the realization that even the Defenders of Wildlife, Southwest Environmental Center and Center for Biological Diversity temporarily dropped their green fundamentalism and were trying to evolve into a “voice of reason”. On only a few occasions did they lower themselves into the anti-ranching rhetoric of the past. Instead they promoted the new concept of a federal buyout of grazing permits.
In the Fall of 2001, Scott McInnis, U.S. House of Representative from Colorado, wrote a letter urging environmental organizations to openly disavow the actions of eco-saboteurs like Earth Liberation Front and its sister organization, Animal Liberation Front. It caused a flurry of controversy and accusations that McInnis was trying to paint all environmental organizations with the same broad brush.
In rebuttal, McInnis wrote that it was not the letter’s purpose “to impugn or link organizations like the Sierra Club to ELF or ALF. The letter had just one purpose: to send a powerful message to the eco-criminals, and their sympathizers, that even those who share a similar environmental ideology deny and reject the use of terror as a tool to promote that ideology.”
As we ate lunch at El Lobo Forum, several of us mused why we kept having round table discussions, no consensus was ever achieved, no problems resolved. We would go home to a flood of new lawsuits, all designed to reek havoc and bring terror upon the ranching community. The agenda never changes.
In the end analysis it must be acknowledged that many mainstream organizations support, and the “fringe organizations” have grown up around, the Wildlands Project. There is an agenda – to implement the plan within our nation. If it requires anarchy, imposing the will of the minority upon the majority, that’s what will be used.
As history is being rewritten by academia and science is being reclassified to include conservation biology, young, zealous ideologists are easy to find. Our universities keep churning them out at an amazing speed. Unfortunately, everyone, including the plants and animals we’re attempting to save, will lose as we continue to rewrite history and force a largely untested science upon mankind.
http://www.uhuh.com/1calfraud/stacks/judymusin.htm#WPP15 (http://www.uhuh.com/1calfraud/stacks/judymusin.htm#WPP15)
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on February 15, 2014, 10:26:32 AM
I heard about Back Country Hunters a couple years ago and looked over there website. I thought about getting involved with them until I tried to figure out where all the money was coming from. I sent a message to their leaders asking questions about membership numbers and where all the money was coming from, it was never answered.
I suspect Toby may be right about this! :dunno:
He is..... Blue Ribbon Coalition has investigated and spoken out about them also.....Good Post Todd
Post by: bearpaw on February 15, 2014, 10:28:35 AM
I heard about Back Country Hunters a couple years ago and looked over their website. I thought about getting involved with them until I tried to figure out where all the money was coming from. I sent a message to their leaders asking questions about membership numbers and where all the money was coming from, it was never answered.Didn't one of your moderators own a backcountryhunters.com/.org website? :rolleyes:
I suspect Toby may be right about this! :dunno:
Don't know? :dunno:
Post by: idahohuntr on February 16, 2014, 10:16:28 AM
So...groups like Backcountry hunters, Trout Unlimited, and a senator who attached the rider to a budget bill to allow wolf hunting in Idaho and Montana are the enemy???? That is some powerful kool-aid.
I imagine backcountry hunters support wilderness bills and very limited motorized access...which may be in conflict with other user group desires...but to suggest they are anti-hunting is laughable.
Post by: bearpaw on February 16, 2014, 10:23:22 AM
Wow...this kind of garbage would be hilarious...if it weren't so pathetic and sad.
So...groups like Backcountry hunters, Trout Unlimited, and a senator who attached the rider to a budget bill to allow wolf hunting in Idaho and Montana are the enemy???? That is some powerful kool-aid.
I imagine backcountry hunters support wilderness bills and very limited motorized access...which may be in conflict with other user group desires...but to suggest they are anti-hunting is laughable.
Laugh all you want, then please explain where all the unexplained dollars they have are coming from. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Are you a member?
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on February 16, 2014, 10:50:34 AM
Wow...this kind of garbage would be hilarious...if it weren't so pathetic and sad.
So...groups like Backcountry hunters, Trout Unlimited, and a senator who attached the rider to a budget bill to allow wolf hunting in Idaho and Montana are the enemy???? That is some powerful kool-aid.
I imagine backcountry hunters support wilderness bills and very limited motorized access...which may be in conflict with other user group desires...but to suggest they are anti-hunting is laughable.
Laugh all you want, then please explain where all the unexplained dollars they have are coming from. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Are you a member?
Unexplained??
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
Post by: bearkautz on February 16, 2014, 11:08:37 AM
Post by: bearpaw on February 16, 2014, 11:16:46 AM
Wow...this kind of garbage would be hilarious...if it weren't so pathetic and sad.
So...groups like Backcountry hunters, Trout Unlimited, and a senator who attached the rider to a budget bill to allow wolf hunting in Idaho and Montana are the enemy???? That is some powerful kool-aid.
I imagine backcountry hunters support wilderness bills and very limited motorized access...which may be in conflict with other user group desires...but to suggest they are anti-hunting is laughable.
Laugh all you want, then please explain where all the unexplained dollars they have are coming from. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Are you a member?
Unexplained??
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
That is some pretty convincing evidence! If it looks like a dog, walks like a dog, and wags it's tail like a dog, it's probably a dog. :dunno:
No doubt there are well meaning hunters who are sucked into these orgs without knowledge of their real purpose. :bdid:
Post by: Bob33 on February 16, 2014, 11:23:28 AM
Post by: snowpack on February 16, 2014, 11:33:18 AM
Is it no longer possible to be pro environment and also a hunter?Sure you can. I would think, though, if you start allying yourself with the anti hunters to fight environmental battles to not be surprised when you are fighting against them later when they want what you have. Enviro groups will do what they can to get the land first, then kick off the non-desirables later.
Post by: Bob33 on February 16, 2014, 11:37:47 AM
[Enviro groups will do what they can to get the land first, then kick off the non-desirables later.Every one of them? Am I to accept at face value that every group with environmental concerns is anti hunting? That seems to be the implication of the article: BHA took money from some "environmental" groups, and that proves they are anti hunting?
Post by: bobcat on February 16, 2014, 11:43:56 AM
Post by: snowpack on February 16, 2014, 11:53:39 AM
That statement didn't say anti-hunting, but it is applicable to many groups. Lots of coalitions formed between different groups of different outlooks, but at the time with common goals. One of the biggies in Western Washington seems to be groups that are anti-logging. They form up all across the board to protect habitat and hunters like to join in thinking they will have more forest to grow game, but then find many of their former allies moving on to the next phase of their end goals--i.e. wolf intro or banning hound or working on getting the movement to ban spring bear, etc.[Enviro groups will do what they can to get the land first, then kick off the non-desirables later.Every one of them? Am I to accept at face value that every group with environmental concerns is anti hunting? That seems to be the implication of the article: BHA took money from some "environmental" groups, and that proves they are anti hunting?
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on February 16, 2014, 12:15:20 PM
It is obvious things are messed up beyond repair ! too Meany idiots ! we are out numbered . :bash:
So pick your allies wisely.....
Post by: idahohuntr on February 16, 2014, 12:47:23 PM
I am not a member...but I probably should join as I support responsible ORV use, backcountry opportunities, hunting access programs, and hunting and fishing: go see for yourself - www.backcountryhunters.org (http://www.backcountryhunters.org)Wow...this kind of garbage would be hilarious...if it weren't so pathetic and sad.
So...groups like Backcountry hunters, Trout Unlimited, and a senator who attached the rider to a budget bill to allow wolf hunting in Idaho and Montana are the enemy???? That is some powerful kool-aid.
I imagine backcountry hunters support wilderness bills and very limited motorized access...which may be in conflict with other user group desires...but to suggest they are anti-hunting is laughable.
Laugh all you want, then please explain where all the unexplained dollars they have are coming from. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Are you a member?
What do you mean "unexplained dollars"?? Give me a break. Anybody who listens to garbage put out by Toby Bridges should have their head examined anyways. I don't care if Al Gore is writing the checks...show me where they are promoting something counter to the interests of public land hunters who enjoy the backcountry.
Last, why are you so opposed to Sen. Tester?? You re-post Toby Bridges garbage assailing the guy that de-listed wolves so they could be hunted/managed by ID and MT. I simply don't understand that logic at all.
Post by: bearpaw on February 16, 2014, 03:09:19 PM
Quote
What do you mean "unexplained dollars"?? Give me a break. Anybody who listens to garbage put out by Toby Bridges should have their head examined anyways. I don't care if Al Gore is writing the checks...show me where they are promoting something counter to the interests of public land hunters who enjoy the backcountry.
This info has already been provided, perhaps you missed it.
Quote
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
Additionally I have heard BHA is working with Conservation Northwest, which is one of the biggest enemies of hunters in this state and has effectively shut down cougar hunting and is forcing too many wolves into Washington with their wolf plan.
Snowpack has done an excellent job of explaining many implications. Of course I don't expect you to understand any of this.
Post by: bearpaw on February 16, 2014, 03:33:20 PM
[Enviro groups will do what they can to get the land first, then kick off the non-desirables later.Every one of them? Am I to accept at face value that every group with environmental concerns is anti hunting? That seems to be the implication of the article: BHA took money from some "environmental" groups, and that proves they are anti hunting?
If it matters to a person how their money and support is being used, I would advise checking into the groups that you choose to support since some groups have been created with ulterior motives. Before joining the most recent group that I joined (Foundation For Wildlife Management), I checked into who started it, for what purpose it was started, where the money is coming from, and what the money is being used for, I did not see any red flags.
I made this post to educate fellow hunters that some groups are not what they seem, it might be wise to ask groups these questions. When I asked BHA these questions, they did not provide any answers.
Well, I consider the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and the Mule Deer Foundation to be pro hunting environmental organizations. Heck I'd even put the Nature Conservancy and the Sierra Club on that list. They all do a great job of preserving wildlife habitat.
I would definitely agree with the RMEF and MDF, I have supported both of them too, along with many others. :tup:
I don't have enough specifics at the moment regarding the Nature Conservancy or the Sierra Club to comment about them at this time.
I am suspect of groups that do not support this philosophy:
"Americans are systematically advocating, legislating, and voting away each others rights. Support all user groups and quit losing opportunity."
Post by: Bob33 on February 16, 2014, 04:11:31 PM
I encourage hunters to do appropriate research before supporting, or choosing not to support an organization.
It's also important to recognize that many donors give to causes on both sides of an issue. GreenDecoys is critical of TRCP for accepting funding from the Turner Foundation. If you look at the list of funders for RMEF, you will find Turner Foundation on the list. The David and Lucille Packard Foundation donated to TRCP according to GreenDecoys. They also contributed to RMEF.
In Washington, it's common for Boeing to give donations to both parties in an election.
Using selected donors as an indication of an organization's mission is helpful, but using it as conclusive evidence is risky, at best.
Post by: JLS on February 16, 2014, 05:13:29 PM
Is it no longer possible to be pro environment and also a hunter?
Apparently so Bob. We can no longer be concerned as to whether a timber sale is responsible, or else we may be labelled anti-hunters. We cannot even remotely consider that climate change may greatly impact future hunting. We cannot ever remotely consider that there are shades of grey in the world instead of just black and white.
Instead of promoting any sort of collaborative effort to benefit us all, I think we should just continue to press for polarity. It works out so well.
Toby Bridges is completely off of his rocker. Denny Rehberg would have had the election completely sewed up if he had done ANYTHING to benefit the average sportsmen of Montana. Instead, he covered for one of his aides who was being investigated for poaching and tried to deter people from legally using state land near Billings.
Jon Tester has done a good job for the sportsmen of Montana, and the US as a whole.
Post by: JLS on February 16, 2014, 07:15:05 PM
http://www.hcn.org/issues/41.12/taking-control-of-the-machine/article_view?b_start:int=4 (http://www.hcn.org/issues/41.12/taking-control-of-the-machine/article_view?b_start:int=4)
Post by: JLS on February 16, 2014, 07:24:56 PM
Quote
Heck I'd even put the Nature Conservancy and the Sierra Club on that list. They all do a great job of preserving wildlife habitat.
I would hope so, because the Nature Conservancy owns a good chunk of land in Central Washington that is open to public hunting.
This insinuation that the Teddy Roosevelt Conservation Partnership is anti-hunting is absolutely ridiculous. They do some pretty good things if you ask me.
Post by: billythekidrock on February 16, 2014, 07:27:14 PM
I heard about Back Country Hunters a couple years ago and looked over their website. I thought about getting involved with them until I tried to figure out where all the money was coming from. I sent a message to their leaders asking questions about membership numbers and where all the money was coming from, it was never answered.Didn't one of your moderators own a backcountryhunters.com/.org website? :rolleyes:
I suspect Toby may be right about this! :dunno:
Pretty sure it wasn't a mod, but I do know that was before Dales ownership of HW.
Post by: KFhunter on February 16, 2014, 07:53:31 PM
Like the poster who posted a trophy picture, only it didn't belong to them.
Groups like these rely upon ignorant dollars to function, such irony to gather up sportsmen's dollars to use against them. I bet they laugh every time someone cuts them a check.
Post by: hunter399 on February 16, 2014, 08:26:10 PM
Post by: Bob33 on February 16, 2014, 08:34:03 PM
People get on this site and pretend they're hunters then head over to the wolf threads all the time, why is making a fake conservation group such a stretch?I don't think anyone denies it can and does happen. The question is how to determine what a specific organization's true objectives are.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on February 16, 2014, 08:40:02 PM
Here is the "radical" legislation from Tester.
http://www.hcn.org/issues/41.12/taking-control-of-the-machine/article_view?b_start:int=4 (http://www.hcn.org/issues/41.12/taking-control-of-the-machine/article_view?b_start:int=4)
Yup there's another bunch
"ATV groups are the worst threat to forest and overall ecosystem health in the West. Not only are they notorious for uncompromising insistence on their right to plow wherever they want to, but the impact of their actions is in practice potentially far worse than logging. Their exclusion from the table was a wise move. "
Post by: idahohuntr on February 16, 2014, 08:46:27 PM
People get on this site and pretend they're hunters then head over to the wolf threads all the time, why is making a fake conservation group such a stretch?I think this happens far less frequently than you imagine...it wasn't long ago when you were trying to paint me as an anti-hunter despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary. I think in the absence of any real logic or data to support your position you and others like bearpaw resort to twisted conspiracies that only exist in your minds.
I have yet to hear one thing BHA does that undermines the interest of public land hunters. I understand some hunters who rely more on motorized vehicles might not like some of their positions...but please, give me some hard evidence of how they are undermining hunters. :bash: :bash:
Post by: KFhunter on February 16, 2014, 08:56:43 PM
People get on this site and pretend they're hunters then head over to the wolf threads all the time, why is making a fake conservation group such a stretch?I don't think anyone denies it can and does happen. The question is how to determine what a specific organization's true objectives are.
How do you figure out how to cast your vote? Do you listen to all the rhetoric they spew? or pull up their voting history?
On a charity group, conservation group etc etc look at money in money out to get your answer.
Post by: KFhunter on February 16, 2014, 09:03:14 PM
People get on this site and pretend they're hunters then head over to the wolf threads all the time, why is making a fake conservation group such a stretch?I think this happens far less frequently than you imagine...it wasn't long ago when you were trying to paint me as an anti-hunter despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary. I think in the absence of any real logic or data to support your position you and others like bearpaw resort to twisted conspiracies that only exist in your minds.
I have yet to hear one thing BHA does that undermines the interest of public land hunters. I understand some hunters who rely more on motorized vehicles might not like some of their positions...but please, give me some hard evidence of how they are undermining hunters. :bash: :bash:
I haven't stated anything bad about BHA because I don't know anything about them, so I clicked this to see what was up.
The rest was just general truisms.
As for people getting on HW pretending their hunters that's been documented and verified. If you're trying to convince me that we don't still have people doing the same thing under a new user name good luck with that.
Furthermore; I think pro-wolf groups have paid wolf advocates who's job it is to get on hunting sites all over the place in an effort to sway opinion, look for evidence of poaching, obfuscate anti-wolf threads and derail discussion on wolves.
At one time I considered you may be one of those people, that's true.
Post by: Bob33 on February 16, 2014, 09:04:22 PM
There is no pat answer. It takes research.People get on this site and pretend they're hunters then head over to the wolf threads all the time, why is making a fake conservation group such a stretch?I don't think anyone denies it can and does happen. The question is how to determine what a specific organization's true objectives are.
How do you figure out how to cast your vote? Do you listen to all the rhetoric they spew? or pull up their voting history?
On a charity group, conservation group etc etc look at money in money out to get your answer.
As I already pointed out, looking only at money in can be meaningless.
Post by: KFhunter on February 16, 2014, 09:10:08 PM
I'm considering rejoining RMEF, but they really alienated me with their silence on the wolf issue.
Post by: hunter399 on February 16, 2014, 09:12:32 PM
Post by: Bob33 on February 16, 2014, 09:29:05 PM
That's why I'm here Bob33 - I didn't know anything about this group prior to this thread and another one before this where they were mentioned (negatively)Their silence irritated a lot of hunters. RMEF's primary objective has always been habitat preservation and enhancement. I think they either didn't recognize the magnitude of the wolf introduction, wanted to stay away from a polarizing issue, or didn't consider it to be within their scope of responsibility.
I'm considering rejoining RMEF, but they really alienated me with their silence on the wolf issue.
They have done an awful lot of good for habitat. They have recently become more engaged with the issue of wolves.
Post by: hunter399 on February 16, 2014, 09:36:52 PM
Post by: JLS on February 16, 2014, 09:41:44 PM
Furthermore; I think pro-wolf groups have paid wolf advocates who's job it is to get on hunting sites all over the place in an effort to sway opinion, look for evidence of poaching, obfuscate anti-wolf threads and derail discussion on wolves.
And that's a two way street. It would not surprise me one bit if Toby Bridges' goal was to incite anti wolf angst in order to keep the cash flowing into Big Game Forever/Sportsmen for Wildlife.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 16, 2014, 10:24:15 PM
Post by: wolfbait on February 17, 2014, 09:16:08 AM
That's why I'm here Bob33 - I didn't know anything about this group prior to this thread and another one before this where they were mentioned (negatively)Their silence irritated a lot of hunters. RMEF's primary objective has always been habitat preservation and enhancement. I think they either didn't recognize the magnitude of the wolf introduction, wanted to stay away from a polarizing issue, or didn't consider it to be within their scope of responsibility.
I'm considering rejoining RMEF, but they really alienated me with their silence on the wolf issue.
They have done an awful lot of good for habitat. They have recently become more engaged with the issue of wolves.
The best habitat in the world does no good if wolves kill off the elk etc.,. No wolf control means no game herds.
"Gordon Poirier of the Alberta Fish and Game Association said he’s aware of the skepticism over bounty programs, but said the combined take of hunters and trappers in the province don’t begin to control burgeoning wolf numbers.
“The wolf population is almost out of control,” he said."
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,147669.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,147669.0.html)
Post by: Bob33 on February 17, 2014, 09:25:04 AM
Post by: JLS on February 17, 2014, 09:41:05 AM
You're right. We should turn the Lolo unit into one big strip mall now.
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on February 17, 2014, 01:16:49 PM
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. These are especially the groups you need to be very cautious of, and it seems BHA fits right into that category. Their big push is for wilderness, the 90% of the population that will lose something when additional areas are designated as wilderness are just collateral damage, all that seems to matter to BHA is that they get more wilderness. This seems the reason for their creation and the reason for the big flow of money from green donors.
Post by: idahohuntr on February 17, 2014, 05:58:30 PM
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.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. :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:
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.
Post by: wolfbait on February 17, 2014, 07:14:25 PM
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.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. :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:
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.
I can understand your anger with Toby, he tells it how it is, which is not exactly what you want people to see or hear. Funny how easy it is to recognize people who are for wolves and wilderness, they seem to always call the other side"extremist". Take a look in the mirror and ask yourself, what others see in you.
If there would have been a "judge" that wasn't bought and paid for by the Clintons, I'm sure we would not be in the spot we are today. AND Before that if the USFWS would have been run by an honest person, the Canadian wolves would never have been released in the lower 48 in the first place. You probably don't like people to say that either. ;)
Post by: bearpaw on February 18, 2014, 12:51:45 AM
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.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. :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:
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.
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.... :twocents:
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. :twocents:
Post by: JLS on February 18, 2014, 06:04:17 AM
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. :twocents:
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 :rolleyes:. 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.
Post by: bearpaw on February 18, 2014, 07:22:18 AM
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/ (http://www.greendecoys.com/decoys/backcountry-hunters-and-anglers/)
Quote
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.
Post by: JLS on February 18, 2014, 07:31:27 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on February 18, 2014, 07:32:08 AM
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 :yeah:
Post by: Bob33 on February 18, 2014, 08:00:44 AM
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/ (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 (http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/conservationist/2011/08/rocky-mountain-elk-foundation-retracts-support-anti-roadless-bill)
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on February 18, 2014, 08:14:02 AM
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.
Post by: bobcat on February 18, 2014, 09:09:32 AM
Quote
Safari Club has all sorts of issues, according to “ReformSafariClub”: http://reformsafariclub.com/ (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. :o
Quote
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.
Post by: bearpaw on February 18, 2014, 09:56:23 AM
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/ (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 (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? :dunno:
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. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on February 18, 2014, 10:02:24 AM
QuoteSafari Club has all sorts of issues, according to “ReformSafariClub”: http://reformsafariclub.com/ (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. :oQuoteSafari 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.... :dunno:
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. :dunno:
Post by: bearpaw on February 18, 2014, 10:07:40 AM
Sorry for getting off topic... :sry:
Post by: Bob33 on February 18, 2014, 10:12:05 AM
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 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/ (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 (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? :dunno:
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. :twocents:
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. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on February 18, 2014, 10:24:02 AM
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. :twocents: