Post by: wolfbait on September 16, 2018, 08:56:04 AM
https://redoubtnews.com/2018/09/hunters-beware-landlocking-public-access/
Post by: optic2 on September 16, 2018, 01:25:41 PM
Hunters Beware: Landlocking Public Access
https://redoubtnews.com/2018/09/hunters-beware-landlocking-public-access/
So after you read this article, what ideas came to mind? Did you just believe everything in it? Or did you think, that is an interesting article, is there any reason this could be untrue and someone or some company may be trying to manipulate my opinion or manipulate my view on conservation groups?
Articles like this and the whole "green decoy" fallacy are created by oil/gas, timber and mining companies who want to buy up public land or use it however they please.
You want too see direct proof of limiting hunter access? The state was going to sell off some DNR land last year and the BHA helped step in get the sale stopped. So if that land would have been sold it would have been turned into private and we would either have no access or had to pay to access.
I can guarantee you that timber, oil/gas and mining companies aren't doing anything to help hunters, hunter access or wildlife. In fact they are working directly against it.
So think to yourself, who spent all of that money making those fancy "green decoy" website and youtube videos. Those cost money, a whole bunch of money. So where did the money come from and why exactly would someone want to spend that much money discrediting organizations like the BHA?
So when you hear the term "fake news", understand that it isn't just CNN. "Green decoy" is as fake news as you could possibly get.
Post by: Bob33 on September 16, 2018, 01:37:59 PM
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/redoubt-news/ (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/redoubt-news/)
Post by: bracer40 on September 16, 2018, 02:14:44 PM
Post by: cbond3318 on September 16, 2018, 04:20:16 PM
Post by: wolfbait on September 16, 2018, 09:03:07 PM
Why I let the Land and Water Conservation Fund expire
https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/12/land-water-conservation-fund-000339
Not to happy about the USFS let it burn policies the last 20 years..
Post by: idahohuntr on September 16, 2018, 09:52:34 PM
Post by: bracer40 on September 16, 2018, 10:37:31 PM
The article is a bunch of garbage. It takes some extra tinfoil to suggest public lands, access, and conservation are bad for hunters. :tinfoil::yeah:
Post by: wolfbait on September 17, 2018, 07:43:09 AM
The article is a bunch of garbage. It takes some extra tinfoil to suggest public lands, access, and conservation are bad for hunters. :tinfoil:
Several folks have always wondered what the agenda would be for WDFW etc. to use wolves and other predators to destroy hunting and drive ranchers out of business, this could be the reason.
Why will there be a need for "corridors" after ten-fifteen more years of wolves and the lack of wolf control?
Why would WDFW etc. be buying up so much land for "wildlife" hunting, when anyone with an ounce of common sense can see the writing on the wall with uncontrolled wolves etc..
I had heard the Nature Conservancy tried to buy the Spring Coulee ranches up a few years back, they were told to go pound sand.
What part of conservation is WDFW etc. accomplishing by letting wolves grow uncontrolled throughout WA? Plus as we have already seen, WDFW etc. can't or won't manage the land they already own. Burning everything up is not management.
I think this needs to be looked into a bit more before it is hauled off as "fake News".
Post by: wolfbait on September 17, 2018, 12:50:11 PM
Yellowstone to Yukon - The big picture
http://eastkootenay.blogspot.com/2006/10/y2y-big-picture.html
Post by: idahohuntr on September 17, 2018, 01:54:56 PM
Wolves are far less of a threat to the future of hunting than loss of hunting access and wildlife habitat.The article is a bunch of garbage. It takes some extra tinfoil to suggest public lands, access, and conservation are bad for hunters. :tinfoil:
Several folks have always wondered what the agenda would be for WDFW etc. to use wolves and other predators to destroy hunting and drive ranchers out of business, this could be the reason.
Why will there be a need for "corridors" after ten-fifteen more years of wolves and the lack of wolf control?
Why would WDFW etc. be buying up so much land for "wildlife" hunting, when anyone with an ounce of common sense can see the writing on the wall with uncontrolled wolves etc..
I had heard the Nature Conservancy tried to buy the Spring Coulee ranches up a few years back, they were told to go pound sand.
What part of conservation is WDFW etc. accomplishing by letting wolves grow uncontrolled throughout WA? Plus as we have already seen, WDFW etc. can't or won't manage the land they already own. Burning everything up is not management.
I think this needs to be looked into a bit more before it is hauled off as "fake News".
Post by: wolfbait on September 17, 2018, 02:23:18 PM
Wolves are far less of a threat to the future of hunting than loss of hunting access and wildlife habitat.The article is a bunch of garbage. It takes some extra tinfoil to suggest public lands, access, and conservation are bad for hunters. :tinfoil:
Several folks have always wondered what the agenda would be for WDFW etc. to use wolves and other predators to destroy hunting and drive ranchers out of business, this could be the reason.
Why will there be a need for "corridors" after ten-fifteen more years of wolves and the lack of wolf control?
Why would WDFW etc. be buying up so much land for "wildlife" hunting, when anyone with an ounce of common sense can see the writing on the wall with uncontrolled wolves etc..
I had heard the Nature Conservancy tried to buy the Spring Coulee ranches up a few years back, they were told to go pound sand.
What part of conservation is WDFW etc. accomplishing by letting wolves grow uncontrolled throughout WA? Plus as we have already seen, WDFW etc. can't or won't manage the land they already own. Burning everything up is not management.
I think this needs to be looked into a bit more before it is hauled off as "fake News".
Looking at WDFW actions so far, it would appear they have no intentions of ever controlling wolves, that being said wolves will destroy hunting and livestock producers using range permits. Which in turn makes it much easier to shut down public lands or implement new policies.
Looking at WDFW 30 year plan it would appear that is in the works, Y2Y or the Wildlands Project would seem to fit their goal. Quite sure they have no plans of coming out and telling the people of WA that they are intentionally destroying the hunting or range permit opportunities for the people of WA using uncontrolled predators.
2003
"Kretz said Senate Bill 5318 (Now SB 5064), which would require American fish and wildlife officials to work with their Canadian counterparts to protect a massive wildlife corridor known as the Yukon to Yellowstone Eco-Region, has raised ire in his district. The 2,000-mile-long swath includes the entire northeast corner of Washington, most of Idaho and much of Montana."
"The Nature Conservancy, working with several other environmental groups, was in Olympia this year asking for $5.5 million to purchase land in the Okanogan-Similkameen area of Okanogan County, which is one of two parts in the effort to turn the 7th District into one big wildlife corridor.''
If the wildlife corridor bill were to pass, Kretz said it would devastate his district.
"Property values would plummet and dangerous wildlife would be free to attack children, pets and livestock," explained Kretz. "Folks that own their land would basically be renting it from an out-of-town environmental group."
http://www.landrights.org/Alert_2009Feb08_Y2YGrab.htm
Sounds quite a bit like WDFW's thirty year plan..
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. s: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Post by: wolfbait on September 18, 2018, 07:22:30 AM
http://thiswestisourwest.com/index.cfm/in-the-news/y2y-another-un-land-grab-are-you-ready/
Post by: bearpaw on September 18, 2018, 08:59:44 AM
Some of the BHA loyalists may attack me, I really don't care. I do agree with some of what BHA promotes and at some point in the future I hope i can agree more with BHA as they become more of their own group and hopefully driven by a more diverse group of hunters and anglers than by the wilderness crowd. What matters to me is that we as a state and as a nation conserve hunting, fishing, and outdoor opportunities for all citizens, regardless of age or physical ability, and not just conserve opportunities for the physically fit users who can hike miles into the wilderness and who seem to dislike most forms of motorized recreation popular with many enthusiasts.
Conspiracy Theories
I was one of the early supporters of Donald Trump and was ridiculed at times because many people claimed Trump was totally off-base and whacko. Now we have learned that Trump's policies are bringing jobs back and the economy is booming. Business is better than ever and employment for nearly all demographics is at record levels or close to it. We are also learning that agencies within our government conspired to stop Trump from becoming president and that Hillary is the one they were promoting and the one who actually had collusion with Russia. It turns out that most of the evening news channels are owned by and promote left leaning interests, we have learned that much of what they report actually is fake news! To top that off, now even Obama is trying to take credit for Trump's economy! :chuckle:
So here's some food for thought, before you blanketly accept the notion that BHA is looking out for all hunters best interests or that some of these websites are whackadoodle web sites, you might want to think about where our government was a couple years ago and what we have learned about previous claims of tinfoil hat theories that have turned into actual facts. I guess what I'm saying is keep an open mind, read all you can from all sides, and base your conclusions on what you see actually happening, not what someone tells you is fact.
Regarding limited access to public lands, I can tell you for a fact that it's a serious issue in Montana. There is a large amount of public lands with no public access. That my friends is a fact, so maybe considering that this article may not be entirely tinfoil hat whacko theory! Just sayin... look at the facts, in Montana this is a big issue already, and they are one of the stronghold states for BHA! Right now I don't have time to dissect the story and try to figure out if there is any factual basis involved or not, but remember, sometimes where there is smoke you will find fire, so I'm not going to figure it's all tinfoil crazy just because a few say it is!
Post by: Special T on September 18, 2018, 09:42:03 AM
Post by: cbond3318 on September 18, 2018, 12:49:17 PM
Before many of you ever heard of BHA I looked into the organization quite deeply, in fact there was a time I considered going to work for them because on the surface they seemed like a good group and at that time I could have used a little extra income, especially if it was made by promoting hunting for future generations. I sent a letter asking some questions about the creation and purpose of the organization, most of the questions were never answered and I received a phone call detailing how the group was created by Mitch Friedman as a front for Conservation Northwest to attract and involve hunters and anglers in their push to create more wilderness (one of CNW ultimate goals). I'm not going to throw anyone under the bus by saying who my source was and I cannot prove I was was being told facts, but when I asked BHA the hard questions they did not reply to them, that in itself raises questions in my mind. I will say the person seemed very knowledgeable about the inner workings of the top leadership of the group and detailed first hand knowledge regarding the creation, goals, and inner workings of BHA. From what I was told by that inside source I wanted nothing to do with BHA, and after finding the Green Decoys website it does not seem to be all conspiracy theory.
Some of the BHA loyalists may attack me, I really don't care. I do agree with some of what BHA promotes and at some point in the future I hope i can agree more with BHA as they become more of their own group and hopefully driven by a more diverse group of hunters and anglers than by the wilderness crowd. What matters to me is that we as a state and as a nation conserve hunting, fishing, and outdoor opportunities for all citizens, regardless of age or physical ability, and not just conserve opportunities for the physically fit users who can hike miles into the wilderness and who seem to dislike most forms of motorized recreation popular with many enthusiasts.
Conspiracy Theories
I was one of the early supporters of Donald Trump and was ridiculed at times because many people claimed Trump was totally off-base and whacko. Now we have learned that Trump's policies are bringing jobs back and the economy is booming. Business is better than ever and employment for nearly all demographics is at record levels or close to it. We are also learning that agencies within our government conspired to stop Trump from becoming president and that Hillary is the one they were promoting and the one who actually had collusion with Russia. It turns out that most of the evening news channels are owned by and promote left leaning interests, we have learned that much of what they report actually is fake news! To top that off, now even Obama is trying to take credit for Trump's economy! :chuckle:
So here's some food for thought, before you blanketly accept the notion that BHA is looking out for all hunters best interests or that some of these websites are whackadoodle web sites, you might want to think about where our government was a couple years ago and what we have learned about previous claims of tinfoil hat theories that have turned into actual facts. I guess what I'm saying is keep an open mind, read all you can from all sides, and base your conclusions on what you see actually happening, not what someone tells you is fact.
Regarding limited access to public lands, I can tell you for a fact that it's a serious issue in Montana. There is a large amount of public lands with no public access. That my friends is a fact, so maybe considering that this article may not be entirely tinfoil hat whacko theory! Just sayin... look at the facts, in Montana this is a big issue already, and they are one of the stronghold states for BHA! Right now I don't have time to dissect the story and try to figure out if there is any factual basis involved or not, but remember, sometimes where there is smoke you will find fire, so I'm not going to figure it's all tinfoil crazy just because a few say it is!
Are you referencing public land in Montana that is inaccessible due to surrounding private land? Or public land we are not allowed to set foot on?
Post by: fireweed on September 18, 2018, 01:06:21 PM
For generations several trails went through this checkerboard area of about 2500 acres. These trails passed several trout lakes and were open to all (horses, motorcycles, hikers, camping). Logging occurred on both the public and private lands.
After the eruption of Mount St. Helens, all this land was traded to Big W. Which for a few years was just like the old days. But we know how that changed, and you can guess what happened. It was locked up then sold off. No more public access--even to the old trails and historic routes--period. No more public fishing, hunting by permission and/or permit only. And access to the rest of the USFS land and historic trails blocked.
Our grant was unsuccessful, but this fund is still out there so perhaps someday the public can return.
Post by: Special T on September 18, 2018, 01:11:15 PM
Post by: cbond3318 on September 18, 2018, 01:57:28 PM
I just can't find evidence to substantiate a claim such as Green Decoy (and others) that these groups are fleecing hunters and anglers while slipping through the backdoor to end hunting and fishing.
Post by: bearpaw on September 18, 2018, 03:10:17 PM
Before many of you ever heard of BHA I looked into the organization quite deeply, in fact there was a time I considered going to work for them because on the surface they seemed like a good group and at that time I could have used a little extra income, especially if it was made by promoting hunting for future generations. I sent a letter asking some questions about the creation and purpose of the organization, most of the questions were never answered and I received a phone call detailing how the group was created by Mitch Friedman as a front for Conservation Northwest to attract and involve hunters and anglers in their push to create more wilderness (one of CNW ultimate goals). I'm not going to throw anyone under the bus by saying who my source was and I cannot prove I was was being told facts, but when I asked BHA the hard questions they did not reply to them, that in itself raises questions in my mind. I will say the person seemed very knowledgeable about the inner workings of the top leadership of the group and detailed first hand knowledge regarding the creation, goals, and inner workings of BHA. From what I was told by that inside source I wanted nothing to do with BHA, and after finding the Green Decoys website it does not seem to be all conspiracy theory.
Some of the BHA loyalists may attack me, I really don't care. I do agree with some of what BHA promotes and at some point in the future I hope i can agree more with BHA as they become more of their own group and hopefully driven by a more diverse group of hunters and anglers than by the wilderness crowd. What matters to me is that we as a state and as a nation conserve hunting, fishing, and outdoor opportunities for all citizens, regardless of age or physical ability, and not just conserve opportunities for the physically fit users who can hike miles into the wilderness and who seem to dislike most forms of motorized recreation popular with many enthusiasts.
Conspiracy Theories
I was one of the early supporters of Donald Trump and was ridiculed at times because many people claimed Trump was totally off-base and whacko. Now we have learned that Trump's policies are bringing jobs back and the economy is booming. Business is better than ever and employment for nearly all demographics is at record levels or close to it. We are also learning that agencies within our government conspired to stop Trump from becoming president and that Hillary is the one they were promoting and the one who actually had collusion with Russia. It turns out that most of the evening news channels are owned by and promote left leaning interests, we have learned that much of what they report actually is fake news! To top that off, now even Obama is trying to take credit for Trump's economy! :chuckle:
So here's some food for thought, before you blanketly accept the notion that BHA is looking out for all hunters best interests or that some of these websites are whackadoodle web sites, you might want to think about where our government was a couple years ago and what we have learned about previous claims of tinfoil hat theories that have turned into actual facts. I guess what I'm saying is keep an open mind, read all you can from all sides, and base your conclusions on what you see actually happening, not what someone tells you is fact.
Regarding limited access to public lands, I can tell you for a fact that it's a serious issue in Montana. There is a large amount of public lands with no public access. That my friends is a fact, so maybe considering that this article may not be entirely tinfoil hat whacko theory! Just sayin... look at the facts, in Montana this is a big issue already, and they are one of the stronghold states for BHA! Right now I don't have time to dissect the story and try to figure out if there is any factual basis involved or not, but remember, sometimes where there is smoke you will find fire, so I'm not going to figure it's all tinfoil crazy just because a few say it is!
Are you referencing public land in Montana that is inaccessible due to surrounding private land? Or public land we are not allowed to set foot on?
Yes, it's inaccessible due to lack of access, usually landlocked by private land.
Post by: bearpaw on September 18, 2018, 03:30:52 PM
So groups that are trying to aquire private land to allow access too and from our public lands are a bad thing? I am a member of BHA and I haven't seen one thing in their body of work that has made me question their mission or question whether that mission is of benefit to us as sportsmen. I've gone through the Green Decoy site and they hang there claim on a portion of donation money coming from conservation, enviromental groups with a highlight on , dare I say, liberal money :yike: Big deal, I don't care if you have a lifesize Obama poster over your bed, if you love our public lands, our wildlife and our wild places, you're a friend of mine when it comes to the outdoors. Period.
I just can't find evidence to substantiate a claim such as Green Decoy (and others) that these groups are fleecing hunters and anglers while slipping through the backdoor to end hunting and fishing.
My biggest complaint is their drive to take away multiple use access from the majority, which pushes more users into dwindling multiple use areas in order to create more wilderness for a minority. If BHA can purchase access easements or specific private property creating access to landlocked public lands, that seems like a win for the majority of users.
Post by: fireweed on September 18, 2018, 03:59:37 PM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on September 18, 2018, 04:07:54 PM
So groups that are trying to aquire private land to allow access too and from our public lands are a bad thing? I am a member of BHA and I haven't seen one thing in their body of work that has made me question their mission or question whether that mission is of benefit to us as sportsmen. I've gone through the Green Decoy site and they hang there claim on a portion of donation money coming from conservation, enviromental groups with a highlight on , dare I say, liberal money :yike: Big deal, I don't care if you have a lifesize Obama poster over your bed, if you love our public lands, our wildlife and our wild places, you're a friend of mine when it comes to the outdoors. Period.
I just can't find evidence to substantiate a claim such as Green Decoy (and others) that these groups are fleecing hunters and anglers while slipping through the backdoor to end hunting and fishing.
My biggest complaint is their drive to take away multiple use access from the majority, which pushes more users into dwindling multiple use areas in order to create more wilderness for a minority. If BHA can purchase access easements or specific private property creating access to landlocked public lands, that seems like a win for the majority of users.
BHA is not against motorized access. Increases to Wilderness areas that we have supported are almost always within inventoried roadless areas that do not currently have legal motorized access. Lots of our members use mountain bikes, ATVs, and vehicles to access they're hunting sites.
Also, I am 100% certain that you are mistaken about Mitch Friedman having anything to do with the formation of BHA. I would love to hear more about your inside "source"
Post by: bearpaw on September 18, 2018, 05:12:22 PM
I'm wondering if the claims on this page are true or not?
https://www.greendecoys.com/decoys/montana-hunters-and-anglers/
Is funding coming from the sources quoted or not? Is the organization a front for liberal political activists or not? It sounds like they are putting big dollars into liberal political candidates, did they spend large amounts of money on political ads as mentioned or not?
Did MHA organize the Obama fly fishing trip to make Obama look like a sportsman? I'm wondering if Obama is as avid of a fly fisherman as he is a shooter?
Funding (Is this true or not?)
https://www.greendecoys.com/decoys/backcountry-hunters-and-anglers/
Quote
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.
https://www.bowhunting.net/2017/02/the-damage-wolves-are-inflicting-on-america-part-2/
Quote
As was expected, Rehberg’s campaign office responded on its website, stating, “An environmental obstructionist front group calling itself ‘Montana Hunters and Anglers’ has spent nearly $250,000 from undisclosed sources running attack ads against Denny Rehberg. Leading that effort was the group’s President, Land Tawney, whom Tester also proudly declares to be an adviser to him in his official Senate duties. Tawney is an employee of the National Wildlife Federation.”
BHA Executive Director, Land Tawney
Worked for the National Wildlife Federation
https://www.shopnwf.org/Adoption-Center/index.cat
Post by: bearpaw on September 18, 2018, 06:35:59 PM
So groups that are trying to aquire private land to allow access too and from our public lands are a bad thing? I am a member of BHA and I haven't seen one thing in their body of work that has made me question their mission or question whether that mission is of benefit to us as sportsmen. I've gone through the Green Decoy site and they hang there claim on a portion of donation money coming from conservation, enviromental groups with a highlight on , dare I say, liberal money :yike: Big deal, I don't care if you have a lifesize Obama poster over your bed, if you love our public lands, our wildlife and our wild places, you're a friend of mine when it comes to the outdoors. Period.
I just can't find evidence to substantiate a claim such as Green Decoy (and others) that these groups are fleecing hunters and anglers while slipping through the backdoor to end hunting and fishing.
My biggest complaint is their drive to take away multiple use access from the majority, which pushes more users into dwindling multiple use areas in order to create more wilderness for a minority. If BHA can purchase access easements or specific private property creating access to landlocked public lands, that seems like a win for the majority of users.
BHA is not against motorized access. Increases to Wilderness areas that we have supported are almost always within inventoried roadless areas that do not currently have legal motorized access. Lots of our members use mountain bikes, ATVs, and vehicles to access they're hunting sites.
Also, I am 100% certain that you are mistaken about Mitch Friedman having anything to do with the formation of BHA. I would love to hear more about your inside "source"
So your not denying that BHA is promoting more wilderness! For me that's strike one, wilderness is out of reach for to too many users. I advocate for keeping the current levels of multiple use, roadless, and wilderness so that all users can maintain their current levels of opportunity outdoors.
I'm not mistaken about anything, I simply repeated what someone told me who knew I sent the message to BHA asking questions, it made sense they were involved with BHA or they wouldn't have known I sent the message, I can neither prove what they was said is true or false, it's simply what I was told, but it certainly raised questions for me? In reading about Land Tawney it seems his background is the National Wildlife Federation. So I have consider leadership strike two?
Funding sources and spending. What is written about where large amounts of money come from to BHA and associated groups and where it is being spent raises questions for me? Is this a group of left wing political activists as portrayed online? I don't see that written about other hunting groups, so for me that's strike three, but I do understand different people have different political views and sometimes we just have to agree to disagree.
Post by: bearpaw on September 18, 2018, 06:39:07 PM
Post by: NumaJohn on September 18, 2018, 07:48:48 PM
Aldo Leopold wrote that "Wilderness is a resource which can shrink but not grow.” So if there is some land out there in Washington that meets the federal requirements for wilderness according to the 1964 Wilderness Act, I think it makes sense for hunters (at least those who agree with the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation's tagline, "Hunting is Conservation") to look seriously at supporting designation of proposed wilderness areas and protection of existing ones.
Is it accurate that less than 10 percent of the State of Washington is actually designated as wilderness? If so, that leaves a great deal of front and backcountry for those who (for any number of legitimate reasons) cannot or choose not to access designated wilderness areas, and that holds true even if a few areas end up being added in the years to come, as a means of protecting wild but currently-unprotected resources that "can shrink but not grow."
Admittedly, if I look at the history of how habitat has been managed by the various entities (at the federal, state, and local levels), there is much to be disappointed about. But there is something special about roadless (even mostly roadless) backcountry, a sort of confirmation that we humans have not screwed everything up. Wilderness, even if we do not enter it, can offer a symbolic power for the wild within us all, just like the U.S. flag has a symbolic power for those of us who love our country.
Now, as a hunter, I often gravitate towards areas that have been logged, and so I personally can relate to the "hunting is better in areas that have created more feeding areas" argument. And I do understand that certain people see and even have experienced designated wilderness as a threat to their livelihoods. Some people see wilderness as a threat to their personal liberty or even their sense of what humans' relationship should be to the natural world ("We should conquer it!"). For me, wilderness enhances my sense of freedom as an American citizen. It reminds me what we have literally and figuratively that so many countries have squandered and will never see again. A romantic position, it's true, but I value wild places in a world that otherwise seems shockingly domesticated.
As an aside, I consider BHA THE best out there in terms of matching my ethics and interests as a hunter. By the way, I also hold a membership and invest additional dollars into supporting the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, with its different-but-also-important mission. Though I am not an NRA supporter--and the new President of RMEF has a 17-year stint with the NRA in his work history--I will look past that fact and hope that he is able to understand the overall mission of his current organization and do his job. Why wouldn't some of you critical of Land Tawney accord him the same treatment? And if the guy has a background with an organization dedicated to wildlife and wildlife habitat, is that all bad, necessarily? He's a hunter, after all, and as Dale cautions, we all have to be cautious about hunter groups weakening one another and thus us all. Shouldn't we at least give BHA and Land Tawney the benefit of the doubt?
Landlocking public access is a real issue, and for those who are seriously concerned about it, I encourage you to get memberships a.s.a.p. in organizations that have demonstrated their willingness to stand up and fight for the preservation of federal lands and for continued access to public lands. BHA does that.
John
Post by: cbond3318 on September 19, 2018, 07:26:00 AM
Also, I am not sure you are aware Bearpaw but the Bowhunter.NET article you linked claims there is a tie between the Wolf Reintroduction and Agenda 21, or the UN plan to destroy humanity as we know it and force humans off the majority of the planet and into tiny safe cities. :o maybe it was a mistake.
Post by: idahohuntr on September 19, 2018, 07:57:57 AM
I've enjoyed seeing Randy Newberg carry along his little green decoy rubber ducky. There is no greater ambassador to public land hunters in this day and age....if hes a green decoy that just shows how insane these people are that push this green decoy bs.
Post by: wolfbait on September 19, 2018, 08:36:10 AM
I apologize for jacking the topic... :sry:
No problem, it is related to the same agenda..
Interesting info..
One of the latest fronts in Big Green’s spider web
https://www.activistfacts.com/organizations/backcountry-hunters-and-anglers/
IRS Complaint Targets Backcountry Hunters & Anglers
https://www.ammoland.com/2014/08/irs-complaint-targets-backcountry-hunters-anglers/#axzz5RYsJibZr
Post by: X-Force on September 19, 2018, 09:06:20 AM
It is encouraging to see several folks pushing back against these tinfoil hat crowds labeling people as "green decoys".
I've enjoyed seeing Randy Newberg carry along his little green decoy rubber ducky. There is no greater ambassador to public land hunters in this day and age....if hes a green decoy that just shows how insane these people are that push this green decoy bs.
Im with you. Randy Newberg and Steven Rinella are the best ambassadors we have.
Post by: X-Force on September 19, 2018, 09:52:54 AM
greendecoys.com corporate sponsors....???
BHA
Wilderness Athlete
Weatherby
Victory Archery
Traeger
RepYourWater
New Belgium Brewing
Camp Chef
Benchmade
Yeti
Vortex Optics
Under Armour
Sitka Gear
Seek Outside
Savage Arms
OnX
Leupold Optics
Kimber
First Lite
Filson
Traditional Bow Hunter
Stone Glacier
Sage
Kettle House Brewing
Elk Valley Bighorn Outifitters
Danner
Cooper Firearms
Blackcoffee Roasting
Alps Outdoorz
WorldCast Anglers
Wilderness Lite
Timber to Table
Princeton tec
Paladin
Mystery Ranch
fishpond
alpacka raft
Now who is pulling the wool of who's eyes?
Post by: wolfbait on September 19, 2018, 10:10:10 AM
Along with receiving nearly $280,000 in 2011 and 2012 from the Western Conservation Foundation—which also funds Natural Resources Defense Council and Earthjustice (the “law firm of the environment”)—BHA has received $165,000 from the Wilburforce Foundation in recent years, a Seattle group that also funds Greenpeace, the Sierra Club Foundation, and others. BHA also received $100,000 from the wealthy, radical, San Francisco-based Hewlett Foundation and nearly $60,000 from the environmentalist Pew Charitable Trusts for “policy” in 2012/13.
Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2014/08/irs-complaint-targets-backcountry-hunters-anglers/#ixzz5RZIFYobE
Post by: X-Force on September 19, 2018, 10:19:34 AM
Something sure as hell stinks..
Along with receiving nearly $280,000 in 2011 and 2012 from the Western Conservation Foundation—which also funds Natural Resources Defense Council and Earthjustice (the “law firm of the environment”)—BHA has received $165,000 from the Wilburforce Foundation in recent years, a Seattle group that also funds Greenpeace, the Sierra Club Foundation, and others. BHA also received $100,000 from the wealthy, radical, San Francisco-based Hewlett Foundation and nearly $60,000 from the environmentalist Pew Charitable Trusts for “policy” in 2012/13.
Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2014/08/irs-complaint-targets-backcountry-hunters-anglers/#ixzz5RZIFYobE
2014.... and the "research" for this story is from greendecoys.com... surprising.
Post by: jmscon on September 19, 2018, 10:30:22 AM
The issues with access to public property is not from groups buying public property and closing it off, its land owners fed up with the crap the public does on their land to get to public property. Roads getting closed that were never public to begin with, people getting locked out of private timberlands, etc.
To the OP’s story, that article is all over the place trying to link all of these organizations together is ridiculous!
OnX working with organization to locate these landlocked public lands and making it easier to work on getting easements, whether they are new or historic, is a huge accomplishment! The checkerboard of public and private land that is mentioned is evident all over the west! In the cascades with NF and private timber companies, all over the state with state trust, DNR, BLM and most of the other western state have the same thing going on. Some is accessible and some is not.
Post by: fireweed on September 19, 2018, 11:38:50 AM
Those old easements of trails should still be intact.... IF there was the will to push to keep it.I did find a few easements for some pieces old trails BUT the roads to the trailheads don't have USFS easements. I suppose you could parachute in and land on the trail, then it would be ok. Other trails needs some more digging to see if they ever had on-paper easements.
Post by: wolfbait on September 19, 2018, 11:46:07 AM
Something sure as hell stinks..
Along with receiving nearly $280,000 in 2011 and 2012 from the Western Conservation Foundation—which also funds Natural Resources Defense Council and Earthjustice (the “law firm of the environment”)—BHA has received $165,000 from the Wilburforce Foundation in recent years, a Seattle group that also funds Greenpeace, the Sierra Club Foundation, and others. BHA also received $100,000 from the wealthy, radical, San Francisco-based Hewlett Foundation and nearly $60,000 from the environmentalist Pew Charitable Trusts for “policy” in 2012/13.
Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2014/08/irs-complaint-targets-backcountry-hunters-anglers/#ixzz5RZIFYobE
2014.... and the "research" for this story is from greendecoys.com... surprising.
Why do you suppose BHA would try to hide the fact that they had received money from radical environmental groups? Is BHA just a false front for another environmental group?
Post by: cbond3318 on September 19, 2018, 12:12:30 PM
So what they have recieved money from Environmental/Wildlife/Conservation groups , it is obvious there is common ground. Protection of our public land, wildlife and resources.
We should be able to see beyond party lines and through this loose crap Green Decoy and all the other regurgitated articles keep banging away at. If, where some of the funding came from is an issue for you and the ACTIONS of BHA, TRCP and the alike don't speak loud enough for you, don't support it, there are plenty of us that will.
Post by: dwils233 on September 19, 2018, 12:16:02 PM
Something sure as hell stinks..
Along with receiving nearly $280,000 in 2011 and 2012 from the Western Conservation Foundation—which also funds Natural Resources Defense Council and Earthjustice (the “law firm of the environment”)—BHA has received $165,000 from the Wilburforce Foundation in recent years, a Seattle group that also funds Greenpeace, the Sierra Club Foundation, and others. BHA also received $100,000 from the wealthy, radical, San Francisco-based Hewlett Foundation and nearly $60,000 from the environmentalist Pew Charitable Trusts for “policy” in 2012/13.
Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2014/08/irs-complaint-targets-backcountry-hunters-anglers/#ixzz5RZIFYobE
2014.... and the "research" for this story is from greendecoys.com... surprising.
Why do you suppose BHA would try to hide the fact that they had received money from radical environmental groups? Is BHA just a false front for another environmental group?
I don't see how its been hidden....apparently if its true they don't seem too concerned with hiding it if you are finding it on the web that easily. I might be upset if they were giving money to "anti-" groups- but isntead they seem to be actively taking money that also could have gone to greenpeace instead so whats the problem with that :dunno:
Finally instead of constantly invoking the same tired and repeated arguments from greendecoys...I'd like to see a response to the comment outlining the BHA corporate sponsors (and hunting leaders like Rinella and Newberg) Do you think those are all front companies trying to destroy hunting as we know it? Or are these successful outdoor companies (and their investors, boards of directors, company management, and hook/bullet employees) somehow being deceived into the BHA long-con to destroy hunting? Is Randy Newberg the anti-hunting manchurian candidate or a complete idiot who is being fooled by BHA? I just fail to see how this all adds up when you look at it through those kind of lenses.
Finally- all this assumes one of two things. either a) most members of BHA are anti-hunting and the leadership reflects that or b) most members of BHA are pro-hunting but the leadership is not. If the BHA leadership is so anti-hunting the members will figure it out and either leave or change it. Conversely, if the membership is so anti-hunting- well I don't think those BHA people I have spent time with me in the field, taken me to their honey holes, taught me to be a better hunter and woodman, shared hunting stories with and got to know at various gatherings in multiple states indicate that to be the case.
Post by: jackelope on September 19, 2018, 12:34:34 PM
@wolfbait and @bearpaw ......... Since you 2 seem to be outspokenly against BHA, what organizations or groups that you guys support are working towards keeping public land public? Please name the organizations you guys support or are in favor of that are working to maintain public access.
Post by: bearpaw on September 19, 2018, 01:46:11 PM
However, depending on your political views, I think it brings up serious questions for some hunters when you look at the leadershiip of BHA, where big donations are coming from, and where big money is being spent by BHA in politics. Rheeberg lost to Tester with the support of BHA, then Tester voted for almost all of Obama's policies. You can thank Tester for the Obamacare mess not to mention many other Obama policies! Yes, I do understand some of you support Obama and the democratic party and I understand many issues are important to us regardless of our political leanings.
But it's not at all crazy to question the underlying political objectives of BHA. Look how long people believed everything on major news media, now we have learned that many of the leading news sources completely made up or altered news stories and refused to report some stories for the political benefit of certain candidates. We've also learning that the FBI actually tried to impact the last presidential election.
I don't think it's crazy at all to question the objectives of a group that has questionable connections and given the extent to which political bias is being perpetuated in all facets of our lives. I suppose maybe it's just a difference in political views as to weather BHA's leaders and funding sources are questionable. It makes sense that if you support the democratic party and Obama policies that you would not mind your BHA dollars going for political campaigns of democrats or to split the Republican vote so the democrat win, it seems that is being admitted. I have to admit that I don't mind and I strongly support the NRA spending money on the political campaigns of candidates friendly to the 2nd Amendment and I would support other organizations if they wanted to spend money on candidates that support hunting, but many orgs don't get politically involved, their dollars are directed toward wildlife. So I understand those who support BHA knowing they are a left leaning politically motivated organization.
However, I do see a difference with the NRA verses BHA, the NRA openly admits that they are spending money to elect pro-firearm politicians. It almost seems like BHA is trying to hide that they support left wing politicians? Does that mean BHA is all bad, certainly not, but at the same time I'm not wanting my sporting dollars supporting candidates of the party that wants to limit the 2nd Amendment and in many cases the party that has restricted hunting and the 2nd Amendment, the party that eliminated or limited hound hunting and trapping in Washington, Oregon, Colorado, California, and has attempted to do so in many other states.
Post by: jackelope on September 19, 2018, 02:12:30 PM
I'm pretty sure the NRA isn't involved in any of that, but I could be wrong. FWIW I am a member of the NRA.
Post by: cbond3318 on September 19, 2018, 02:13:30 PM
Here is a statement made by BHA following the election of President Trump.
https://www.backcountryhunters.org/backcountry_hunters_anglers_statement_on_the_u_s_presidential_election_results
Backcountry Hunters & Anglers’ Statement on the U.S. Presidential Election Results
MISSOULA, Mont. – In the wake of a presidential election characterized by unprecedented conflict and vitriol, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers urged sportsmen to look forward: uniting in support of shared values, sound natural resources management and American public lands.
BHA President and CEO Land Tawney issued the following statement:
“BHA stands for the public lands sportsman, for conservation of important lands and waters, for continued public access to our most valuable of resources. These values are not owned by any party, and they have historically been championed by leaders on both sides of the political aisle.
“Following an unprecedentedly contentious presidential election and many hard-fought congressional races, we look forward to returning to a set of shared values: our belief in America’s lands and waters, our outdoor traditions, and enabling every citizen to avail themselves of opportunities to enjoy our public lands.”
In July, the Republic National Committee’s platform panel endorsed an amendment promoting the transfer of public lands to individual states. Tawney today commented on this decision:
“A party that calls for the sale/transfer of public lands in its platform now has control of the House, Senate and presidency. We are encouraged that President Elect Trump, along with some courageous House and Senate Republicans, have broken from their party on this issue. We look forward to their continued rejection of the privatization of public lands and instead tackling other pressing issues such as wildfire management and declining budgets that face our public lands.”
BHA National Board Member Mike Schoby, editor of Petersen’s Hunting, interviewed Trump in January about his views on issues important to sportsmen. From the article:
“When it came to hunters’ rights and federal land sales, Donald Trump didn’t waffle, stating that a USFWS director appointed by him would ‘ideally be a hunter’ and under his watch there would be no sale of public Western lands.”
Tawney stressed the importance of the new administration appointments of key cabinet positions that represent sportsmen’s interests:
“Mr. Trump’s sons are public lands hunters, and sportsmen appreciate the insight they have and will continue to offer on decisions critical to our outdoor heritage. BHA relishes the hard work that lies ahead, and we look forward to working with all our elected leaders to conserve our backcountry lands and waters, uphold our sporting legacy and, above all, keep public lands in public hands.”
Post by: jackelope on September 19, 2018, 02:26:42 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-energy-202/2017/10/17/the-energy-202-this-hunter-helped-zinke-get-his-job-now-he-says-zinke-is-putting-our-public-lands-at-risk/59e5280c30fb041a74e75dba/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.617fde366164
Post by: dwils233 on September 19, 2018, 03:08:59 PM
I agree that Rinella and Newberg are great ambassadors for hunting. I agree that we need to prevent any net loss of public lands. I agree that we need to find ways to access landlocked public lands, those lands belong to all of the people of the United States. I think most of us agree on these points!
However, depending on your political views, I think it brings up serious questions for some hunters when you look at the leadershiip of BHA, where big donations are coming from, and where big money is being spent by BHA in politics. Rheeberg lost to Tester with the support of BHA, then Tester voted for almost all of Obama's policies. You can thank Tester for the Obamacare mess not to mention many other Obama policies! Yes, I do understand some of you support Obama and the democratic party and I understand many issues are important to us regardless of our political leanings.
But it's not at all crazy to question the underlying political objectives of BHA. Look how long people believed everything on major news media, now we have learned that many of the leading news sources completely made up or altered news stories and refused to report some stories for the political benefit of certain candidates. We've also learning that the FBI actually tried to impact the last presidential election.
I don't think it's crazy at all to question the objectives of a group that has questionable connections and given the extent to which political bias is being perpetuated in all facets of our lives. I suppose maybe it's just a difference in political views as to weather BHA's leaders and funding sources are questionable. It makes sense that if you support the democratic party and Obama policies that you would not mind your BHA dollars going for political campaigns of democrats or to split the Republican vote so the democrat win, it seems that is being admitted. I have to admit that I don't mind and I strongly support the NRA spending money on the political campaigns of candidates friendly to the 2nd Amendment and I would support other organizations if they wanted to spend money on candidates that support hunting, but many orgs don't get politically involved, their dollars are directed toward wildlife. So I understand those who support BHA knowing they are a left leaning politically motivated organization.
However, I do see a difference with the NRA verses BHA, the NRA openly admits that they are spending money to elect pro-firearm politicians. It almost seems like BHA is trying to hide that they support left wing politicians? Does that mean BHA is all bad, certainly not, but at the same time I'm not wanting my sporting dollars supporting candidates of the party that wants to limit the 2nd Amendment and in many cases the party that has restricted hunting and the 2nd Amendment, the party that eliminated or limited hound hunting and trapping in Washington, Oregon, Colorado, California, and has attempted to do so in many other states.
Just to speak to a distinction between BHA and NRA- They are different types of non-profit, with BHA being a 501c3 and NRA being a 501c4. Not to get overly technical but I believe that means while the NRA can be directly involved in political campaigns and donations to elections, as well as lobbying and endorsements, the BHA cannot. I tihnk in this conversation its important to make this distinction because the BHA cannot actually do some of the things its being accused of. Sure Tawney might make another group that does it, and he or others might support a candidate, but BHA doesn't do it. I just don't want anybody to think that BHA can do what the NRA does in regards to the capacity/level of politicking :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on September 19, 2018, 03:37:43 PM
The guys that don't like BHA seem to not like BHA because of the whole pro-wilderness thing. I can't help but wonder if they throw around all the anti-BHA stuff because they're worried about BHA working towards more designated wilderness. I get the whole multi-user group access thing, but it seems like BHA is doing more to promote public land staying public in general than anything else.
@wolfbait and @bearpaw ......... Since you 2 seem to be outspokenly against BHA, what organizations or groups that you guys support are working towards keeping public land public? Please name the organizations you guys support or are in favor of that are working to maintain public access.
WOW, really!
I support almost every major hunting organization, not bragging about how much I have given but since I have been called out on this I will point out that I have donated tens of thousands of dollars worth of hunts to support: SCI (almost every chapter in Washington and numerous chapters across the nation), RMEF (many different chapters), NWTF (many different chapters across the nation including chapters in WA), Washington State Bowhunters almost every year, and I have also donated hunts to other organizations. I also send membership dues to a long list of organizations and I am a life member with several of them.
The only organization I have serious doubts about at this time is BHA, and it's because of the reasons I have mentioned, wanting to increase wilderness areas, supporting the democratic party which is trying to and has successfully eliminated some of my 2nd Amendment rights and many of my hunting opportunities, and has made healthcare even more costly and hard to obtain for working class folks.
So that you can understand my view on wilderness, I'm not advocating to reduce wilderness, I strongly support keeping our current ratio of wilderness and accessible lands. But remember, if you take away accessible lands that will force more people into the remaining accessible lands unless you restrict human use and that is what some people advocate for too. I'm advocating that we should not take away existing access from the majority of users, many of which have no physical ability to access wilderness areas unless they pay an outfitter to pack them. Yes, I know that if half of Washington was wilderness my business might be more successful, but I simply cannot agree with taking away access from the majority to benefit the minority. We should also not forget that our multiple use public lands are important to providing energy for our national security, our economic stability, and forest products for our homes and daily needs.
If you choose to support BHA that is certainly your choice, it's currently my choice to oppose them due to their actions, objectives, and I believe the candidates they support have contributed to the Obama mess this country is trying to pull out of? The fact that some of us have a different outlook on BHA doesn't mean we are not supportive of hunting, fishing, or other outdoor pursuits, and public lands, I think it demonstrates that we are possibly more supportive of these issues and all users. I would never want to see a net loss of outdoor activities or loss of our public lands.
I want to again reiterate that I very strongly support many sporting groups (probably more than some who are questioning my integrity) and I think all those groups strongly support public lands! I'm not aware that any of the groups I support are opposed to public lands, in fact RMEF or NWTF funds are used to improve public land habitat and buy critical lands for wildlife and I have contributed to both of those orgs!
Post by: jackelope on September 19, 2018, 03:47:52 PM
Post by: bearpaw on September 19, 2018, 04:10:14 PM
I was just asking which groups you support. Wasn't trying to call you out or anything...wasn't even really talking about from a money standpoint.
BHA is one of the few groups I haven't supported, I strongly support most groups. There was about 10 years I quit supporting and was critical of RMEF because they would not speak out about wolves at a time when speaking out was needed to get management, but when their leadership changed, and that may have been because enough people spoke up, the group really took a good turn and I fully support them again now.
You may have missed it, in a previous post I mentioned I agree with BHA on some issues and that I thought over time as the group changes I may agree with them more. I truly believe discussions like this are probably good for BHA or any group. If I was running BHA I would want to know what concerns are out there?
Post by: bearpaw on September 19, 2018, 05:05:55 PM
These two posts are quite contradictory regarding BHA political activity:
These smear articles (Green Decoy) all hang their hat on 2 things, a portion of funding from conservation/environmental groups and the money spent in oppostion to Republican U.S Senate candidate Denny Rehburg in 2012, fun fact, MHA also supported the libertarian candidate. It makes perfect sense they would want Denny to lose after learning of his point of view and treatment of public lands as his own, he was dangerous. That action is inline with what they represent, access and protection of our public lands regardless of political party.
So what they have recieved money from Environmental/Wildlife/Conservation groups , it is obvious there is common ground. Protection of our public land, wildlife and resources.
We should be able to see beyond party lines and through this loose crap Green Decoy and all the other regurgitated articles keep banging away at. If, where some of the funding came from is an issue for you and the ACTIONS of BHA, TRCP and the alike don't speak loud enough for you, don't support it, there are plenty of us that will.
Just to speak to a distinction between BHA and NRA- They are different types of non-profit, with BHA being a 501c3 and NRA being a 501c4. Not to get overly technical but I believe that means while the NRA can be directly involved in political campaigns and donations to elections, as well as lobbying and endorsements, the BHA cannot. I tihnk in this conversation its important to make this distinction because the BHA cannot actually do some of the things its being accused of. Sure Tawney might make another group that does it, and he or others might support a candidate, but BHA doesn't do it. I just don't want anybody to think that BHA can do what the NRA does in regards to the capacity/level of politicking :twocents:
Post by: dwils233 on September 19, 2018, 05:14:01 PM
I had asked some questions about the truthfulness of the green decoys website. I've seen BHA supporters who talked down the green decoys site, but has anyone shown any proof that it is false? After reading posts and links from BHA supporters it appears some of the claims might be true? For example some people are saying BHA did spend money supporting a democratic candidate and spent money to split the Republican vote in Montana. So I'm still wondering exactly which claims on the green decoys site are false? :dunno:
These two posts are quite contradictory regarding BHA political activity:These smear articles (Green Decoy) all hang their hat on 2 things, a portion of funding from conservation/environmental groups and the money spent in oppostion to Republican U.S Senate candidate Denny Rehburg in 2012, fun fact, MHA also supported the libertarian candidate. It makes perfect sense they would want Denny to lose after learning of his point of view and treatment of public lands as his own, he was dangerous. That action is inline with what they represent, access and protection of our public lands regardless of political party.
So what they have recieved money from Environmental/Wildlife/Conservation groups , it is obvious there is common ground. Protection of our public land, wildlife and resources.
We should be able to see beyond party lines and through this loose crap Green Decoy and all the other regurgitated articles keep banging away at. If, where some of the funding came from is an issue for you and the ACTIONS of BHA, TRCP and the alike don't speak loud enough for you, don't support it, there are plenty of us that will.Just to speak to a distinction between BHA and NRA- They are different types of non-profit, with BHA being a 501c3 and NRA being a 501c4. Not to get overly technical but I believe that means while the NRA can be directly involved in political campaigns and donations to elections, as well as lobbying and endorsements, the BHA cannot. I tihnk in this conversation its important to make this distinction because the BHA cannot actually do some of the things its being accused of. Sure Tawney might make another group that does it, and he or others might support a candidate, but BHA doesn't do it. I just don't want anybody to think that BHA can do what the NRA does in regards to the capacity/level of politicking :twocents:
The contradiction is because the green decoys website is intentionally trying to conflate two separate actions by Tawney- that BHA and MHA are somehow linked beyond Tawney being a member of both organizations. Even though I'm a BHA member, I'm trying to just provide some very clear distinctions that are necessary to this conversation. I hope that makes sense. I think people, especially those involved in this discussion about BHA need to keep what BHA does separate from what an individual BHA might do or believe- even BHA leadership. Negligently, accidentally, or intentionally condensing all of BHA into a single decision, a single actor, a single state is problematic and divisive at best
Post by: Special T on September 20, 2018, 09:49:03 AM
Those old easements of trails should still be intact.... IF there was the will to push to keep it.I did find a few easements for some pieces old trails BUT the roads to the trailheads don't have USFS easements. I suppose you could parachute in and land on the trail, then it would be ok. Other trails needs some more digging to see if they ever had on-paper easements.
I remember a discussion on here about access and that old USFS roads and trails were on maps they were good to go. much like how you cannot fence off a trail that kids have used to get to school for a long time. I want to say the discussion was Montana or Utah....
Post by: bearpaw on September 20, 2018, 12:01:08 PM
Those old easements of trails should still be intact.... IF there was the will to push to keep it.I did find a few easements for some pieces old trails BUT the roads to the trailheads don't have USFS easements. I suppose you could parachute in and land on the trail, then it would be ok. Other trails needs some more digging to see if they ever had on-paper easements.
I remember a discussion on here about access and that old USFS roads and trails were on maps they were good to go. much like how you cannot fence off a trail that kids have used to get to school for a long time. I want to say the discussion was Montana or Utah....
I think most every forest has a "Travel Plan", and they have a "Travel Plan Map". Typically roads are closed to travel unless specifically identified as being open to travel, there will be a "Legend" which shows what type of vehicles are allowed on which types of roads per the way they are marked on the map. If the road is not marked as being open it is closed to travel.
Post by: bearpaw on September 25, 2018, 06:57:29 PM
GUNS & HUNTING, WITHIN SCI
GREEN DECOYS EXPOSED
https://huntforever.org/2018/09/20/green-decoys-exposed/?utm_source=HunterPride&utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_campaign=Advocacy2&utm_content=GreenDecoysExposed
Post by: mfswallace on September 25, 2018, 08:28:54 PM
Post by: Slamadoo on September 25, 2018, 09:48:57 PM
Maybe I, you, or we don't agree on EVERY opinion or position that they take, but the positives FAR outweigh the negatives.
Post by: jmscon on September 25, 2018, 10:24:09 PM
There is big money funding the smear campaigns of BHA because of their stance keeping public lands in public hands and the LWCF. It's saddening to see a pro-hunting group spreading negative rumors about another pro-hunting group. It really is a sign of the times and I hope we can come out on top and prevent these campaigns from dividing us as hunters.
Post by: jmscon on September 25, 2018, 10:24:38 PM
Anyone who seriously thinks that groups like BHA, TRCP, The Meateater crew, Newberg, or the LWCF are sportsmen and women's biggest threats or some sort of "green decoy" needs to look in the mirror and ask themselves what they want for the future of hunting, fishing, and outdoor recreation. These groups and individuals are some of our best resources and tools towards preserving our public lands and hunting heritage for future generations.
Maybe I, you, or we don't agree on EVERY opinion or position that they take, but the positives FAR outweigh the negatives.
:yeah:
Post by: wolfbait on September 26, 2018, 08:43:56 PM
I agree that Rinella and Newberg are great ambassadors for hunting. I agree that we need to prevent any net loss of public lands. I agree that we need to find ways to access landlocked public lands, those lands belong to all of the people of the United States. I think most of us agree on these points!
However, depending on your political views, I think it brings up serious questions for some hunters when you look at the leadershiip of BHA, where big donations are coming from, and where big money is being spent by BHA in politics. Rheeberg lost to Tester with the support of BHA, then Tester voted for almost all of Obama's policies. You can thank Tester for the Obamacare mess not to mention many other Obama policies! Yes, I do understand some of you support Obama and the democratic party and I understand many issues are important to us regardless of our political leanings.
But it's not at all crazy to question the underlying political objectives of BHA. Look how long people believed everything on major news media, now we have learned that many of the leading news sources completely made up or altered news stories and refused to report some stories for the political benefit of certain candidates. We've also learning that the FBI actually tried to impact the last presidential election.
I don't think it's crazy at all to question the objectives of a group that has questionable connections and given the extent to which political bias is being perpetuated in all facets of our lives. I suppose maybe it's just a difference in political views as to weather BHA's leaders and funding sources are questionable. It makes sense that if you support the democratic party and Obama policies that you would not mind your BHA dollars going for political campaigns of democrats or to split the Republican vote so the democrat win, it seems that is being admitted. I have to admit that I don't mind and I strongly support the NRA spending money on the political campaigns of candidates friendly to the 2nd Amendment and I would support other organizations if they wanted to spend money on candidates that support hunting, but many orgs don't get politically involved, their dollars are directed toward wildlife. So I understand those who support BHA knowing they are a left leaning politically motivated organization.
However, I do see a difference with the NRA verses BHA, the NRA openly admits that they are spending money to elect pro-firearm politicians. It almost seems like BHA is trying to hide that they support left wing politicians? Does that mean BHA is all bad, certainly not, but at the same time I'm not wanting my sporting dollars supporting candidates of the party that wants to limit the 2nd Amendment and in many cases the party that has restricted hunting and the 2nd Amendment, the party that eliminated or limited hound hunting and trapping in Washington, Oregon, Colorado, California, and has attempted to do so in many other states.
:yeah:
The bottom line for hunters etc. is to check into any outfits you want to support for your hunting rights etc.. As we have seen in this thread there are many who work for the other side.
Hell of a note to support an outfit that is working to destroy your hunting, just because some greeny's on a hunting site etc. claim otherwise. Do Your Own Research.
Post by: NumaJohn on September 26, 2018, 09:05:07 PM
I'm a BHA member who loves to hunt. That puts me opposite you? You love to hunt, I bet. You value public access to public land, as I do, I imagine.
Seems to me we have much in common, except perhaps what we believe about BHA,
John
Post by: jmscon on September 26, 2018, 09:16:36 PM
When you start to use your vote for hunting and public lands first you will start to find that not all blue is against hunting, guns, Wilderness, roadless areas, pro-wolf and not all red is for public access and federally managed lands where so much of go hunting! If you start to vote hunting and public lands first you will start to get out of the deep blue and deep red and see that both sides of the isle can find common ground on things. Our society is so divided from social media and ultra liberal or conservative sites, news, talk shows, etc. that getting unbiased reporting is almost impossible. Fake news, slandering, selective reporting is rampant and ruining us.
My soap box just brok, I’m done.
Post by: Mudman on September 26, 2018, 09:27:56 PM
Post by: NumaJohn on September 26, 2018, 09:37:09 PM
jmscon wrote "If you start to vote hunting and public lands first you will start to get out of the deep blue and deep red and see that both sides of the [aisle] can find common ground on things."
That 82 percent of Idahoans could mean very little or very much in terms of jmscon's reminder to us because there's no evidence that 82 percent voted "hunting and public lands first." It would be interesting to know how many did, however, but I guess we'll never know. My hope would be that many people who vote red do so, as I believe all of us, regardless of our political affiliations, need to band together to save public land, especially federal land owned by all Americans. Here's Steve Rinella, talking to reds, blues, and anyone else who cares about public lands: https://www.backcountryhunters.org/steven_rinella_public_land_owner
John
Post by: jmscon on September 26, 2018, 10:02:34 PM
Hmm, yet Idaho voted something like 82% Rep. Your argument is flawed to me. It seems its about 80-90% Rep support eh?They are accurately 48% rep, 11% dem and 40% in affiliated.
http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/boise/2017/may/22/gop-still-posting-strong-numbers-idaho-full-sunday-column/
Also in 2013 they voted to demand that the feds hand over all land to Idaho control.
https://legislature.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/sessioninfo/2013/legislation/HCR022.pdf
Utah has similar demographics 48% rep and 12% dem where republican rep. Bob Bishop has been on his train to divest all of the federally managed public lands in the entire country.
Post by: dwils233 on September 26, 2018, 11:22:05 PM
For those who want to know more! From SCI regarding BHA and it's leadership and funding streams...
GUNS & HUNTING, WITHIN SCI
GREEN DECOYS EXPOSED
https://huntforever.org/2018/09/20/green-decoys-exposed/?utm_source=HunterPride&utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_campaign=Advocacy2&utm_content=GreenDecoysExposed
I'd say that's not new information- it's literally almost word for word what the greendecays site says.
Honestly I think I've made some important clarifications through out this thread that are either intentionally being ignored or overlooked and it's applicable to this conversation.
1. BHA is not MHA and Land Tawney is not the end all be all of either
2. BHA legally cannot do some of the things (accidentally or intentionally) it has been accused of doing in regards to politics
3. If BHA takes money from "radical environmentalist" sources- is that a bad thing? As long as BHA continues doing it's mission, that's less money they would give to org's working against that mission. There's only so much money in that pie and it's much better if BHA gets it over say Greenpeace
4. Finally, it behooves people accusing BHA of this conspiracy to undermine hunting and access to play the story out all the way. Once again- are all these companies secretly anti-hunting or just so niaive and stupid they all got conned into GIVING PROFITS away to destroy their own busnet by funding an anti-hunting organization?? Rinella, Newberg, Trump Jr. Then would all have to be stupid or anti-hunting? I don't even want that to sound sarcastic, seriously asking to know what anti-bha'ers think is the rationale.
There's a significant amount of "listening to respond and not to comprehend" in this thread. I've heard criticisms and concerns of BHA. I'm trying to ask questions to clarify, understand and push this conversation forward instead of us digging into our own positions. I'd would love if people who are vocally anti-bha'ers or hyper critical of bha could answer these questions and move the conversation forward.
Post by: dwils233 on September 26, 2018, 11:37:54 PM
Just an example: voted for Trump now even after he gave money to Democrats in the past ( or more recently, insulted a POW.) This is just an easy example for this crowd. Obviously, I can produce them for the other side of the aisle too.
Post by: bearpaw on September 27, 2018, 04:32:56 AM
Hmm, yet Idaho voted something like 82% Rep. Your argument is flawed to me. It seems its about 80-90% Rep support eh?They are accurately 48% rep, 11% dem and 40% in affiliated.
http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/boise/2017/may/22/gop-still-posting-strong-numbers-idaho-full-sunday-column/
Also in 2013 they voted to demand that the feds hand over all land to Idaho control.
https://legislature.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/sessioninfo/2013/legislation/HCR022.pdf
Utah has similar demographics 48% rep and 12% dem where republican rep. Bob Bishop has been on his train to divest all of the federally managed public lands in the entire country.
I think the majority will vote for whomever they perceive can win and who will benefit their well being and values.
Quote
Also in 2013 they voted to demand that the feds hand over all land to Idaho control.There was a fear during the Obama years of discontinued access and use of Federal lands. Some people (including some sportsmen) do not want any mining, no logging, and no oil or gas production on public lands. These activities and others are important to the security and wealth of America, especially rural America. Under Trump we have gone from being energy dependent on the middle east to being an energy export country, we have more jobs, and a booming economy.
Obama's policies were strangling local economies, I myself supported the transfer of federal lands to state control as public lands. I would never support any net loss of public lands! But at the time Obama was strangling many rural areas, Obama was killing rural America, so transferring federal lands to state control was gaining a lot of traction. Currently I see it as a non-issue, under the Trump administration we are seeing an emphasis on energy and resource independence, local rural economies are flourishing. The Trump Admin has reversed the usurping of lands into monuments and so you see the push for transfer of lands to state control has diminished. However, the reality is that if we get another president like Obama who starts impacting rural areas by trying to make huge swaths of land into parks/monuments, I expect the push to transfer federal lands to state lands will gain steam again.
Idahoans, Utahans, and other western residents love their public land, but I can personally tell you, "and I deal with all the state and federal agencies every year in multiple states and districts" the USFS and BLM were taking away recreational use, access, and industrial use on a regular basis. I think most westerners want to use the public lands for recreation and for economic benefit, they do not want their use taken away by federal bureaucrats sitting in far away offices making monuments and parks that shut down local economies and block public use of the lands. So my advice to the liberals is to look for more reasonable candidates if you want to keep from making state/federal land control an issue again in the future!
And I'm going to add one more- if you cant get behind BHA because of land Tawney but can get behind any other organization or group while occassionally disagreeing with actions or statements of it's leader- then you are being unfair and holding a group and person to a higher standard than you hold yourself to because of bias.
Just an example: voted for Trump now even after he gave money to Democrats in the past ( or more recently, insulted a POW.) This is just an easy example for this crowd. Obviously, I can produce them for the other side of the aisle too.
I don't think it's at all unreasonable to question the motives of certain leaders of certain groups who are spending large amounts of money to impact political elections. It's not at all unreasonable to see that if a group could dupe large numbers of sportsmen into supporting them that it would give them more political leverage. In fact, it likely gave groups in Montana the leverage to impact the election results. Public lands is the issue that has been propped up by certain group leaders, what other ulterior motivations do they have. By getting Tester elected it gave Obama more congressional control over all issues in America. By electing more liberals from numerous states it could completely change the political landscape and land use issues.
It's very naive to think that very liberal organizations are contributing very large amounts of money to certain "hunting" groups to insure there are lands open for hunters to hunt. Obviously some of you must believe that or else you think you can dupe the rest of us into thinking that? At any rate, there is much more at play than keeping public lands open to hunting. If liberal leaning groups were successful at getting enough liberals elected I would expect big changes in land use. I would expect huge expansions to National Parks, larger and increased numbers of monuments, and access reduced to many lands currently being used by millions of Americans, that's what these liberal leaning groups who give money to BHA advocate for. The bottom line is that there are plenty of groups we can support that advocate for public land use for all, or you can take your chances and support groups who's leaders appear to be very friendly, very supportive, and accepting large amounts of money from the very groups who want to stop hunting and using that money to support liberal candidates who will vote the way the liberal groups desire.
Just some food for thought, think about it then follow your conscience!
(For the record, I support nearly all hunting groups, but I have asked BHA questions regarding their funding and political goals, they did not even reply to those questions!)
Post by: bigtex on September 27, 2018, 08:36:59 AM
It wasn't just during the Obama era, it's been going on since the early 80s through both D and R presidencies. Some states (especially UT and NV) want to take control of federally managed land so they can manage it themselves or sell it off. But, and thankfully so, all studies done by states have shown that the states don't have the financial ability to manage the lands.Hmm, yet Idaho voted something like 82% Rep. Your argument is flawed to me. It seems its about 80-90% Rep support eh?They are accurately 48% rep, 11% dem and 40% in affiliated.
http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/boise/2017/may/22/gop-still-posting-strong-numbers-idaho-full-sunday-column/
Also in 2013 they voted to demand that the feds hand over all land to Idaho control.
https://legislature.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/sessioninfo/2013/legislation/HCR022.pdf
Utah has similar demographics 48% rep and 12% dem where republican rep. Bob Bishop has been on his train to divest all of the federally managed public lands in the entire country.
I think the majority will vote for whomever they perceive can win and who will benefit their well being and values.QuoteAlso in 2013 they voted to demand that the feds hand over all land to Idaho control.There was a fear during the Obama years of discontinued access and use of Federal lands. Some people (including some sportsmen) do not want any mining, no logging, and no oil or gas production on public lands. These activities and others are important to the security and wealth of America, especially rural America. Under Trump we have gone from being energy dependent on the middle east to being an energy export country, we have more jobs, and a booming economy.
Obama's policies were strangling local economies, I myself supported the transfer of federal lands to state control as public lands. I would never support any net loss of public lands! But at the time Obama was strangling many rural areas, Obama was killing rural America, so transferring federal lands to state control was gaining a lot of traction. Currently I see it as a non-issue, under the Trump administration we are seeing an emphasis on energy and resource independence, local rural economies are flourishing. The Trump Admin has reversed the usurping of lands into monuments and so you see the push for transfer of lands to state control has diminished. However, the reality is that if we get another president like Obama who starts impacting rural areas by trying to make huge swaths of land into parks/monuments, I expect the push to transfer federal lands to state lands will gain steam again.
Idahoans, Utahans, and other western residents love their public land, but I can personally tell you, "and I deal with all the state and federal agencies every year in multiple states and districts" the USFS and BLM were taking away recreational use, access, and industrial use on a regular basis. I think most westerners want to use the public lands for recreation and for economic benefit, they do not want their use taken away by federal bureaucrats sitting in far away offices making monuments and parks that shut down local economies and block public use of the lands. So my advice to the liberals is to look for more reasonable candidates if you want to keep from making state/federal land control an issue again in the future!
Fact is, there are still a lot of Republicans in Congress who want to get rid of federal lands even with Trump in power. People like Rob Bishop (in reality the entire UT delegation), Dan Newhouse, Doug LaMalfa, Ted Cruz, etc. all want the federal government to no longer manage federal lands.
FYI, the president can only turn current federal land into monuments, he can't on his own designate them as parks. Only congress can create parks.
Post by: cbond3318 on September 27, 2018, 08:43:49 AM
Public land in states hands is the worst possible scenario.
Post by: bigtex on September 27, 2018, 08:53:15 AM
It amazes me how some will blind themselves so deeply by making this a Republican/ Democrat issue.:yeah:
Public land in states hands is the worst possible scenario.
I think part of it is also we live in WA where we have pretty much unlimited access to our state (DNR and WDFW) lands. Well not all states are like us. Go to Colorado where state lands are closed to public use unless they are opened to the public, and most aren't open to the public. States like Idaho which has sold off most of their state land since statehood. Oregon where the state was in a financial crisis so they decided to sell a large state forest to a timber company only to have the citizens revolt against the move.
I understand people don't like the bureaucracy of the federal government (I don't either) but it's not going to get better if the keys are turned over to the states. Some states will sell off the land because there's simply too much for them to manage, some states will close it off (like Colorado), and others (like WA has said) will vehemently fight the transfer to them because they don't want to take on the extra burden.
Post by: jackelope on September 27, 2018, 09:05:21 AM
Post by: bradslam on September 27, 2018, 10:00:47 AM
It amazes me how some will blind themselves so deeply by making this a Republican/ Democrat issue.:yeah:
Public land in states hands is the worst possible scenario.
I think part of it is also we live in WA where we have pretty much unlimited access to our state (DNR and WDFW) lands. Well not all states are like us. Go to Colorado where state lands are closed to public use unless they are opened to the public, and most aren't open to the public. States like Idaho which has sold off most of their state land since statehood. Oregon where the state was in a financial crisis so they decided to sell a large state forest to a timber company only to have the citizens revolt against the move.
I understand people don't like the bureaucracy of the federal government (I don't either) but it's not going to get better if the keys are turned over to the states. Some states will sell off the land because there's simply too much for them to manage, some states will close it off (like Colorado), and others (like WA has said) will vehemently fight the transfer to them because they don't want to take on the extra burden.
:yeah:
Post by: Slamadoo on September 27, 2018, 05:53:13 PM
Post by: csaaphill on October 02, 2018, 02:14:16 AM
Hunters Beware: Landlocking Public Access:tup:
https://redoubtnews.com/2018/09/hunters-beware-landlocking-public-access/
Not sure on if it's 100% true or not but yes there are places that are landlocked. See it around me. The ever loving BLM owns land above or around or behind private land that No one can get to because of the Private owners.
Funny Wolfbait If I'd of defended your story I'd of been called all kinds of names :dunno:
but others come to the rescue Golden. :chuckle:
But god stuff thanks for keeping us posted. I care less the source!
Post by: Sandberm on October 02, 2018, 04:26:33 AM
I agree, do your own research!
When you start to use your vote for hunting and public lands first you will start to find that not all blue is against hunting, guns, Wilderness, roadless areas, pro-wolf and not all red is for public access and federally managed lands where so much of go hunting! If you start to vote hunting and public lands first you will start to get out of the deep blue and deep red and see that both sides of the isle can find common ground on things. Our society is so divided from social media and ultra liberal or conservative sites, news, talk shows, etc. that getting unbiased reporting is almost impossible. Fake news, slandering, selective reporting is rampant and ruining us.
My soap box just brok, I’m done.
Here here.
I approve of this rant 100%.
Post by: Holg3107 on October 02, 2018, 05:19:51 AM
Quote
Quote from: jmscon on September 26, 2018, 09:16:36 PM
I agree, do your own research!
When you start to use your vote for hunting and public lands first you will start to find that not all blue is against hunting, guns, Wilderness, roadless areas, pro-wolf and not all red is for public access and federally managed lands where so much of go hunting! If you start to vote hunting and public lands first you will start to get out of the deep blue and deep red and see that both sides of the isle can find common ground on things. Our society is so divided from social media and ultra liberal or conservative sites, news, talk shows, etc. that getting unbiased reporting is almost impossible. Fake news, slandering, selective reporting is rampant and ruining us.
My soap box just brok, I’m done.
Here here.
I approve of this rant 100%.
I also approve of this rant! Too many heads buried too deep in their red and blue sand...
Post by: bracer40 on October 02, 2018, 12:16:58 PM
I also approve!QuoteQuote from: jmscon on September 26, 2018, 09:16:36 PM
I agree, do your own research!
When you start to use your vote for hunting and public lands first you will start to find that not all blue is against hunting, guns, Wilderness, roadless areas, pro-wolf and not all red is for public access and federally managed lands where so much of go hunting! If you start to vote hunting and public lands first you will start to get out of the deep blue and deep red and see that both sides of the isle can find common ground on things. Our society is so divided from social media and ultra liberal or conservative sites, news, talk shows, etc. that getting unbiased reporting is almost impossible. Fake news, slandering, selective reporting is rampant and ruining us.
My soap box just brok, I’m done.
Here here.
I approve of this rant 100%.
I also approve of this rant! Too many heads buried too deep in their red and blue sand...
Post by: csaaphill on October 02, 2018, 08:02:59 PM
It amazes me how some will blind themselves so deeply by making this a Republican/ Democrat issue.Not now days I think. What with almost a 100mil coming in from legal marijuana a legal Gambling. From some of my research lots of money from both go into the General fund and think it can be distributed as needed. Yes! Most of it is earmarked for Law Enforcement, and Education etc..., but some does go into the General fund to be used as needed.
Public land in states hands is the worst possible scenario.
States that can self sustain can take over their/our own lands, and keep them open.
Post by: X-Force on October 02, 2018, 08:26:17 PM
It amazes me how some will blind themselves so deeply by making this a Republican/ Democrat issue.Not now days I think. What with almost a 100mil coming in from legal marijuana a legal Gambling. From some of my research lots of money from both go into the General fund and think it can be distributed as needed. Yes! Most of it is earmarked for Law Enforcement, and Education etc..., but some does go into the General fund to be used as needed.
Public land in states hands is the worst possible scenario.
States that can self sustain can take over their/our own lands, and keep them open.
I would argue that taking a couple years of revenues is not enough to overcome the history of states selling off land.
USFS and BLM land are free to access. DNR is $35 for a discover pass.
Every state has different state land access requirements, federal land is pretty consistent throughout.
Post by: csaaphill on October 02, 2018, 08:40:11 PM
Well do it slowly... just add in one area or two every few years, adding in language these lands can't be sold. Meaning only give the state/s parcels of land to manage every few years that they can afford, with said language.It amazes me how some will blind themselves so deeply by making this a Republican/ Democrat issue.Not now days I think. What with almost a 100mil coming in from legal marijuana a legal Gambling. From some of my research lots of money from both go into the General fund and think it can be distributed as needed. Yes! Most of it is earmarked for Law Enforcement, and Education etc..., but some does go into the General fund to be used as needed.
Public land in states hands is the worst possible scenario.
States that can self sustain can take over their/our own lands, and keep them open.
I would argue that taking a couple years of revenues is not enough to overcome the history of states selling off land.
USFS and BLM land are free to access. DNR is $35 for a discover pass.
Every state has different state land access requirements, federal land is pretty consistent throughout.
Post by: csaaphill on October 02, 2018, 08:50:54 PM
Most of what I read was to fight global warming, make lands into National parks etc...
Post by: mfswallace on October 03, 2018, 07:08:48 AM
Hmm, yet Idaho voted something like 82% Rep. Your argument is flawed to me. It seems its about 80-90% Rep support eh?They are accurately 48% rep, 11% dem and 40% in affiliated.
http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/boise/2017/may/22/gop-still-posting-strong-numbers-idaho-full-sunday-column/
Also in 2013 they voted to demand that the feds hand over all land to Idaho control.
https://legislature.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/sessioninfo/2013/legislation/HCR022.pdf
Utah has similar demographics 48% rep and 12% dem where republican rep. Bob Bishop has been on his train to divest all of the federally managed public lands in the entire country.
I think the majority will vote for whomever they perceive can win and who will benefit their well being and values.QuoteAlso in 2013 they voted to demand that the feds hand over all land to Idaho control.There was a fear during the Obama years of discontinued access and use of Federal lands. Some people (including some sportsmen) do not want any mining, no logging, and no oil or gas production on public lands. These activities and others are important to the security and wealth of America, especially rural America. Under Trump we have gone from being energy dependent on the middle east to being an energy export country, we have more jobs, and a booming economy.
Obama's policies were strangling local economies, I myself supported the transfer of federal lands to state control as public lands. I would never support any net loss of public lands! But at the time Obama was strangling many rural areas, Obama was killing rural America, so transferring federal lands to state control was gaining a lot of traction. Currently I see it as a non-issue, under the Trump administration we are seeing an emphasis on energy and resource independence, local rural economies are flourishing. The Trump Admin has reversed the usurping of lands into monuments and so you see the push for transfer of lands to state control has diminished. However, the reality is that if we get another president like Obama who starts impacting rural areas by trying to make huge swaths of land into parks/monuments, I expect the push to transfer federal lands to state lands will gain steam again.
Idahoans, Utahans, and other western residents love their public land, but I can personally tell you, "and I deal with all the state and federal agencies every year in multiple states and districts" the USFS and BLM were taking away recreational use, access, and industrial use on a regular basis. I think most westerners want to use the public lands for recreation and for economic benefit, they do not want their use taken away by federal bureaucrats sitting in far away offices making monuments and parks that shut down local economies and block public use of the lands. So my advice to the liberals is to look for more reasonable candidates if you want to keep from making state/federal land control an issue again in the future!And I'm going to add one more- if you cant get behind BHA because of land Tawney but can get behind any other organization or group while occassionally disagreeing with actions or statements of it's leader- then you are being unfair and holding a group and person to a higher standard than you hold yourself to because of bias.
Just an example: voted for Trump now even after he gave money to Democrats in the past ( or more recently, insulted a POW.) This is just an easy example for this crowd. Obviously, I can produce them for the other side of the aisle too.
I don't think it's at all unreasonable to question the motives of certain leaders of certain groups who are spending large amounts of money to impact political elections. It's not at all unreasonable to see that if a group could dupe large numbers of sportsmen into supporting them that it would give them more political leverage. In fact, it likely gave groups in Montana the leverage to impact the election results. Public lands is the issue that has been propped up by certain group leaders, what other ulterior motivations do they have. By getting Tester elected it gave Obama more congressional control over all issues in America. By electing more liberals from numerous states it could completely change the political landscape and land use issues.
It's very naive to think that very liberal organizations are contributing very large amounts of money to certain "hunting" groups to insure there are lands open for hunters to hunt. Obviously some of you must believe that or else you think you can dupe the rest of us into thinking that? At any rate, there is much more at play than keeping public lands open to hunting. If liberal leaning groups were successful at getting enough liberals elected I would expect big changes in land use. I would expect huge expansions to National Parks, larger and increased numbers of monuments, and access reduced to many lands currently being used by millions of Americans, that's what these liberal leaning groups who give money to BHA advocate for. The bottom line is that there are plenty of groups we can support that advocate for public land use for all, or you can take your chances and support groups who's leaders appear to be very friendly, very supportive, and accepting large amounts of money from the very groups who want to stop hunting and using that money to support liberal candidates who will vote the way the liberal groups desire.
Just some food for thought, think about it then follow your conscience!
(For the record, I support nearly all hunting groups, but I have asked BHA questions regarding their funding and political goals, they did not even reply to those questions!)
Interesting and aligns with Bearpaws reasoning...
https://dailycaller.com/2018/10/02/conservative-climate-promotion/?utm_medium=email
Nonprofit foundations gave conservative groups $10 million to promote liberal energy policies.
That effort includes targeting young conservatives and social conservatives for climate “education.”
The Christian Coalition received more than $4 million to spread the climate gospel among its membership.
Wealthy charitable foundations spent $10 million on an effort that included handing money to conservative and libertarian think tanks and grassroots organizations to promote “a stable climate” and “a clean energy future” among other environmental issues, The Daily Caller News Foundation has found.
For example, two foundations that promote liberal energy policies handed nearly $4.2 million to the Christian Coalition to sway its conservative, religious membership of policies typically associated with liberals and environmentalists, according to grant information from tax filings from 2008 to 2016.
The Christian Coalition describes itself as “one of the largest conservative grassroots political organizations in America.”
However, the group received funding from charitable foundations since 2008 to “identify and educate supporters of renewable energy within the conservative community,” “advance policy solutions for a stable climate” and other related efforts, according to two grant descriptions.
The group, headed by Roberta Combs, did not respond to TheDCNF’s request for comment.
“Environmental foundations have funded faux-conservative groups for many years to make it seem like their radical climate ideology has a broader consensus than it really does,” Institute for Energy Research (IER) President Tom Pyle told TheDCNF.
“If you see so-called conservative or free market groups pushing for policies that are anti-free market, follow the money, odds are left-leaning environmental foundations are supporting it,” Pyle said.
TheDCNF’s findings are based on tax filings of 10 charitable foundations detailing grants to more than 1,500 activists groups, think tanks and others between 2008 and 2016. Grants and tax data were compiled by IER and made public on the website “Big Green Inc.”
Carbon Tax Cash
The rise of so-called “eco-conservatives” has attracted media attention in recent years, but many conservative activists see the eco-right as part of a broader effort to popularize liberal policies aimed at phasing out fossil fuels and fighting global warming.
Former South Carolina Rep. Bob Inglis, a Republican, is one of those “eco-conservatives” who has made a career of promoting a carbon tax and green energy policies. However, his group, the Energy & Enterprise Institute (EEI), got more than $101,000 in 2012 from the Energy Foundation. Inglis founded EEI in 2012 out of George Mason University.
“We were grateful to get some funding from Energy Foundation early on,” Inglis told TheDCNF, adding that they haven’t gotten any funding from the wealthy foundation lately. “We would love for them to come back.”
The San Francisco-based Energy Foundation was founded in 1991 to promote a “sustainable energy future by advancing energy efficiency and renewable energy,” according to its website.
The foundation, however, is typically associated with funding left-wing environmental causes. In fact, President Barack Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency chief joined the foundation’s board in September, and, from 2009 to 2013, the nonprofit took money from billionaire Tom Steyer’s foundation.
Steyer, a former hedge fund manager, made a name for himself opposing the Keystone XL oil pipeline, founding a political action group that has moved onto other issues, including advocating for President Donald Trump’s impeachment.
Inglis became a climate activist after losing to a primary challenger in 2010, largely because of his support for a carbon tax. Since then, Inglis has generated headlines as a conservative concerned about global warming. (RELATED: Inside The $4 Billion Wealthy Liberal Foundations Handed To Environmentalists)
The former congressman cast a carbon tax as a “free market” solution to global warming that economists consider a carbon tax the most efficient way to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
However, he admits the idea has more traction on the political left than the right, which is why he works with progressives on the issue.
“Why would I not happily receive money from any progressive looking for a free market solution to climate change?” Inglis said in an interview.
IER’s database also shows groups like the R Street Institute and Niskanen Center, known for their efforts to promote a carbon tax, received $2.1 million and $550,000, respectively, from liberal foundations, according to Big Green Inc.’s data.
R Street, Niskanen and EEI are “on the vanguard of reminding conservatives what is actually conservative,” Inglis told TheDCNF.
Inglis is on R Street’s board of directors, and R Street President Eli Lehrer is on the Niskanen Center’s advisory board. The former lawmaker recently went on a national tour to promote a carbon tax among conservatives, NBC News reported.
However, Pyle said groups promoting a carbon tax are being fueled by liberal foundations. Pyle said liberal support for a carbon tax should raise suspicions among conservatives.
“The reality is there is nothing ‘conservative’ about groups pushing for liberal policies like a carbon tax,” Pyle said.
Most prominent conservative groups and Republican lawmakers oppose a carbon tax. A coalition of 21 groups signed a statement supporting an anti-carbon tax House resolution.
Louisiana Republican Rep. Steve Scalise’s anti-carbon tax resolution passed the House in July with all but six Republicans voting for it. When introducing the resolution, Scalise said a carbon tax “would raise costs on everything we buy from electricity and gasoline to food and everyday household products.”
“A 2014 Heritage Foundation report found that a $37 per ton carbon tax would lead to a loss of more than $2.5 trillion in aggregate gross domestic product by 2030,” reads the coalition’s statement on Scalise’s bill.
“That is more than $21,000 in income loss per family,” reads the letter. “In addition, a carbon tax would cost over 500,000 jobs in manufacturing and more than 1 million jobs by 2030. According to a 2013 CBO report, a carbon tax is highly regressive.”
The Energy Foundation did not respond to TheDCNF’s request for comment.
Targeting Social Conservatives
Despite describing itself as “one of the largest conservative grassroots political organizations in America,” the Christian Coalition got nearly$4.2 million from two wealthy liberal foundations, according to Big Green Inc. data.
A $100,000 grant from the Energy Foundation to the Coalition in 2012 is for “outreach to socially conservative audiences on energy reform policies.” Two Energy Foundation grants to the Coalition in 2013, totalling $255,000, went towards pushing “policy solutions for a stable climate.”
“To identify and educate supporters of renewable energy within the conservative community,” reads the description of one $100,000 grant the Energy Foundation gave the Coalition in 2012.
The Energy Foundation also gave the National Wildlife Federation a $125,000 grant in 2011 for the environmental group’s “partnership with the Christian Coalition and engage conservative leaders on energy issues.”
The Christian Coalition also took $1 million from the The William & Flora Hewlett Foundation between 2013 and 2016 to support an affiliate group called Young Conservatives for Energy Reform (YCER).
YCER is headed by Michele Combs, Roberta Combs’ daughter. (RELATED: A New Report Details How Nonprofits Are Funneling Millions To Democratic Governors To Further Their Global Warming Agenda)
The group’s mission is to identify and train “young conservative influential leaders” and represent their “point-of-view on energy reform before local councils, state legislatures, and Congress.”
The Hewlett Foundation’s grant says YCER “brings together young, professional, and socially conservative leaders in key states to support state and federal clean energy policies.”
The Hewlett Foundation’s environmental grants are meant to “protect people and places threatened by a warming planet by addressing climate change globally, expanding clean energy, and conserving the North American West,” according to its website.
The charitable group was one of 29 organizations that pledged $4 billion over the next five years to fight global warming. That amount included $600 million the Hewlett Foundation promised in December 2017 that it would spend on global warming activism.
Hewlett and others made the announcement at the Global Climate Action Summit in September in San Francisco. The summit was co-hosted by California Governor Jerry Brown, a Democrat, and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a major environmental campaigner.
Neither the Hewlett Foundation nor Michele Combs responded to TheDCNF’s request for comme