Post by: Bushcraft on May 17, 2021, 04:07:17 PM
Now he will again try to profit off the firearm industry by slandering it and labeling the industry and 2A supporters as "radical extremists".
It gets even better when Busse calls 2A Supporters racists in the the book synopsis.
"But replacing self-imposed decency with rampant fear-mongering, racism, hardline conservative politics, massive profits from semi-automatic weapons sales, and McCarthyesque policing have driven Busse to do something few other gun executives have done: he's ending his 30-year career in the industry to tell its secrets."
Hard Pass for me.
It's probably worth noting that he's involved with Backcountry Hunters & Anglers and that he left Kimber to start up a PAC for Biden. Look into the details of the .orgs you are supporting.
Post by: KFhunter on May 17, 2021, 04:17:55 PM
Post by: OutHouse on May 17, 2021, 04:21:00 PM
Post by: jay.sharkbait on May 17, 2021, 04:34:33 PM
Post by: grundy53 on May 17, 2021, 04:58:14 PM
Smells like a duck...Yup. BHA board member...
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: konradcountry on May 17, 2021, 08:09:14 PM
.... in a book that he will happily sell you
for the truth of course
Post by: Bushcraft on June 07, 2021, 10:01:31 PM
I guess the 1st amendment, like the 2nd is a right for every American.
The defense of the 1st and 2nd Amendments are both interesting and appreciable. Truly.
But, at what point would you begin to feel uncomfortable at being very publicly and very wrongfully labeled a racist, or worse?
I'm asking for the rest of us that would just as soon flatten the son of a bitch's traitorous beak.
Post by: Bushcraft on June 07, 2021, 10:03:01 PM
But replacing self-imposed decency with rampant fear-mongering, racism, hardline conservative politics, massive profits from semi-automatic weapons sales, and McCarthyesque policing have driven Busse to do something few other gun executives have done: he's ending his 30-year career in the industry to tell its secrets
.... in a book that he will happily sell you
for the truth of course
Oh, how I wish there was a "Like" button for comments such as this. :tup:
Post by: BowLake on June 08, 2021, 01:56:29 PM
Smells like a duck...Yup. BHA board member...
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
https://www.backcountryhunters.org/board_of_directors
Don't see him on the board link above....
BHA sticks to their mission: public lands, the preservation and access to them. BHA does not dip into gun rights just like you wouldn't expect NRA to stand up for public lands.
Busse's opinion on guns is his and not BHA's. Just like Romney and Cheney's opinions are theirs, not the GOP.
Post by: grundy53 on June 08, 2021, 03:44:45 PM
He isn't anymore. He was for years. As far as the rest of your statement. You can try to justify their actions or lack there of anyway you like. But I'm still done with them. Have been for a few years. Their top guys are not the kind of people I want representing me.Smells like a duck...Yup. BHA board member...
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
https://www.backcountryhunters.org/board_of_directors
Don't see him on the board link above....
BHA sticks to their mission: public lands, the preservation and access to them. BHA does not dip into gun rights just like you wouldn't expect NRA to stand up for public lands.
Busse's opinion on guns is his and not BHA's. Just like Romney and Cheney's opinions are theirs, not the GOP.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 08, 2021, 06:43:48 PM
Interesting. I almost want to grab a copy just to see what he has to say.
The book isn't released yet and it's written by an industry insider and lifelong hunter. Interesting to see the rabid right jump on it without reading it...but not surprising. Cancel culture at its finest. :)
Post by: mburrows on June 08, 2021, 07:20:49 PM
Smells like a duck...Yup. BHA board member...
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
https://www.backcountryhunters.org/board_of_directors
Don't see him on the board link above....
BHA sticks to their mission: public lands, the preservation and access to them. BHA does not dip into gun rights just like you wouldn't expect NRA to stand up for public lands.
Busse's opinion on guns is his and not BHA's. Just like Romney and Cheney's opinions are theirs, not the GOP.
I used to think BHA was a good one to support but after reading up on their lack of actual hunting advocacy, wildlife management opinions and for the support that they accept from anti hunting and anti 2A I’ll never give them another dollar.
Post by: BowLake on June 09, 2021, 09:53:06 AM
He isn't anymore. He was for years. As far as the rest of your statement. You can try to justify their actions or lack there of anyway you like. But I'm still done with them. Have been for a few years. Their top guys are not the kind of people I want representing me.Smells like a duck...Yup. BHA board member...
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
https://www.backcountryhunters.org/board_of_directors
Don't see him on the board link above....
BHA sticks to their mission: public lands, the preservation and access to them. BHA does not dip into gun rights just like you wouldn't expect NRA to stand up for public lands.
Busse's opinion on guns is his and not BHA's. Just like Romney and Cheney's opinions are theirs, not the GOP.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
You don't want the top guys representing you because they are willing to reach across the aisle and work with other groups? They should only work with groups who share 100% the same values across the board. Hmm... sounds reasonable. Digging in and toeing the party line has been super productive in this great country recently... let's continue to believe that the "others" are the enemy on every topic and not be subjective.
What actions did BHA take or not take that have you fired up? Were you upset when their board in CA had a huge role in stopping the bear ban in CA? What about the work they have done in eastern states to allow hunting on Sundays? Work they are doing in Washington to add new access and hunting opportunity? Did they lead the charge on the LWCF - something that every single user of this forum benefits from?
Were you upset when the NRA didn't take a stand on the transfer of public lands? I didn't hear anything from them when CA bear ban was proposed. Are they involved in fighting the push to remove any hunting besides subsistence hunting in two units in AK?
Damn green decoys...
Post by: BowLake on June 09, 2021, 09:55:40 AM
Smells like a duck...Yup. BHA board member...
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
https://www.backcountryhunters.org/board_of_directors
Don't see him on the board link above....
BHA sticks to their mission: public lands, the preservation and access to them. BHA does not dip into gun rights just like you wouldn't expect NRA to stand up for public lands.
Busse's opinion on guns is his and not BHA's. Just like Romney and Cheney's opinions are theirs, not the GOP.
I used to think BHA was a good one to support but after reading up on their lack of actual hunting advocacy, wildlife management opinions and for the support that they accept from anti hunting and anti 2A I’ll never give them another dollar.
Outside of not being staunch, vocal supporters of the 2A (not their mission) and not wanting every wolf in North America dead, what issues do you have with their hunting advocacy and wildlife management?
Blanket statements are easy, nuance isn't.
Post by: grundy53 on June 09, 2021, 10:54:36 AM
He isn't anymore. He was for years. As far as the rest of your statement. You can try to justify their actions or lack there of anyway you like. But I'm still done with them. Have been for a few years. Their top guys are not the kind of people I want representing me.Smells like a duck...Yup. BHA board member...
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
https://www.backcountryhunters.org/board_of_directors
Don't see him on the board link above....
BHA sticks to their mission: public lands, the preservation and access to them. BHA does not dip into gun rights just like you wouldn't expect NRA to stand up for public lands.
Busse's opinion on guns is his and not BHA's. Just like Romney and Cheney's opinions are theirs, not the GOP.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
You don't want the top guys representing you because they are willing to reach across the aisle and work with other groups? They should only work with groups who share 100% the same values across the board. Hmm... sounds reasonable. Digging in and toeing the party line has been super productive in this great country recently... let's continue to believe that the "others" are the enemy on every topic and not be subjective.
What actions did BHA take or not take that have you fired up? Were you upset when their board in CA had a huge role in stopping the bear ban in CA? What about the work they have done in eastern states to allow hunting on Sundays? Work they are doing in Washington to add new access and hunting opportunity? Did they lead the charge on the LWCF - something that every single user of this forum benefits from?
Were you upset when the NRA didn't take a stand on the transfer of public lands? I didn't hear anything from them when CA bear ban was proposed. Are they involved in fighting the push to remove any hunting besides subsistence hunting in two units in AK?
Damn green decoys...
They don't reach across the aisle. They are already on the other side of the aisle.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: Platensek-po on June 09, 2021, 11:56:48 AM
He isn't anymore. He was for years. As far as the rest of your statement. You can try to justify their actions or lack there of anyway you like. But I'm still done with them. Have been for a few years. Their top guys are not the kind of people I want representing me.Smells like a duck...Yup. BHA board member...
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
https://www.backcountryhunters.org/board_of_directors
Don't see him on the board link above....
BHA sticks to their mission: public lands, the preservation and access to them. BHA does not dip into gun rights just like you wouldn't expect NRA to stand up for public lands.
Busse's opinion on guns is his and not BHA's. Just like Romney and Cheney's opinions are theirs, not the GOP.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
You don't want the top guys representing you because they are willing to reach across the aisle and work with other groups? They should only work with groups who share 100% the same values across the board. Hmm... sounds reasonable. Digging in and toeing the party line has been super productive in this great country recently... let's continue to believe that the "others" are the enemy on every topic and not be subjective.
What actions did BHA take or not take that have you fired up? Were you upset when their board in CA had a huge role in stopping the bear ban in CA? What about the work they have done in eastern states to allow hunting on Sundays? Work they are doing in Washington to add new access and hunting opportunity? Did they lead the charge on the LWCF - something that every single user of this forum benefits from?
Were you upset when the NRA didn't take a stand on the transfer of public lands? I didn't hear anything from them when CA bear ban was proposed. Are they involved in fighting the push to remove any hunting besides subsistence hunting in two units in AK?
Damn green decoys...
They don't reach across the aisle. They are already on the other side of the aisle.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Just curious but can you actually name something that they have done or advocated for that you are against? Or is it just that they took money from groups you don’t like? Would like to understand more as to what it is that is so repulsive about BHA
Post by: Jake Dogfish on June 09, 2021, 12:27:40 PM
:yeah:Interesting. I almost want to grab a copy just to see what he has to say.
The book isn't released yet and it's written by an industry insider and lifelong hunter. Interesting to see the rabid right jump on it without reading it...but not surprising. Cancel culture at its finest. :)
Post by: mburrows on June 13, 2021, 02:26:53 PM
Smells like a duck...Yup. BHA board member...
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
https://www.backcountryhunters.org/board_of_directors
Don't see him on the board link above....
BHA sticks to their mission: public lands, the preservation and access to them. BHA does not dip into gun rights just like you wouldn't expect NRA to stand up for public lands.
Busse's opinion on guns is his and not BHA's. Just like Romney and Cheney's opinions are theirs, not the GOP.
I used to think BHA was a good one to support but after reading up on their lack of actual hunting advocacy, wildlife management opinions and for the support that they accept from anti hunting and anti 2A I’ll never give them another dollar.
Outside of not being staunch, vocal supporters of the 2A (not their mission) and not wanting every wolf in North America dead, what issues do you have with their hunting advocacy and wildlife management?
Blanket statements are easy, nuance isn't.
I encourage you to look at who their biggest donors are. Western Conservation Foundation who is staunchly anti hunting/sciences based wildlife management. WCF supports a number of anti hunting groups. Wilburforce was their next biggest donor who also supports extreme environmentalist grounds like the Sierra Foundation. Wilburforces exec director was an executive at the Humane Society of the United States (not your local humane society) who is a huuuge anti hunting and animals rights group.
Follow the money. Their loyalty will be to those donors not their members. By all means if you believe in what they say then hand them over your hard earned dollars. I’d rather hand mine to the mule deer foundation, RMEF and even TRCP.
Post by: wasledman on June 15, 2021, 07:12:41 AM
Smells like a duck...Yup. BHA board member...
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
https://www.backcountryhunters.org/board_of_directors
Don't see him on the board link above....
BHA sticks to their mission: public lands, the preservation and access to them. BHA does not dip into gun rights just like you wouldn't expect NRA to stand up for public lands.
Busse's opinion on guns is his and not BHA's. Just like Romney and Cheney's opinions are theirs, not the GOP.
I used to think BHA was a good one to support but after reading up on their lack of actual hunting advocacy, wildlife management opinions and for the support that they accept from anti hunting and anti 2A I’ll never give them another dollar.
Outside of not being staunch, vocal supporters of the 2A (not their mission) and not wanting every wolf in North America dead, what issues do you have with their hunting advocacy and wildlife management?
Blanket statements are easy, nuance isn't.
I encourage you to look at who their biggest donors are. Western Conservation Foundation who is staunchly anti hunting/sciences based wildlife management. WCF supports a number of anti hunting groups. Wilburforce was their next biggest donor who also supports extreme environmentalist grounds like the Sierra Foundation. Wilburforces exec director was an executive at the Humane Society of the United States (not your local humane society) who is a huuuge anti hunting and animals rights group.
Follow the money. Their loyalty will be to those donors not their members. By all means if you believe in what they say then hand them over your hard earned dollars. I’d rather hand mine to the mule deer foundation, RMEF and even TRCP.
Straight from the Green decoy website :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:...the website created by oil lobbyists and their Pr Firm as a smear campaign against multiple Conservation organizations such as Backcoutnry Hutners & Anglers, Trout Unlimited, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, to name afew.
Post by: mburrows on June 15, 2021, 09:41:18 AM
It cannot be disputed that accept large donations from anti-hunting groups and they are non-responsive to 2A issues. Like I said, if you want to support them go ahead. Ill give my money to those that support 2A and don't take dollars from anti hunting groups because well, follow the $$. Simple as that.
Post by: idaho guy on June 15, 2021, 02:35:45 PM
Actually I got it from activist facts and from listening to some podcasts. Does the source of the information bother you or the information itself?
It cannot be disputed that accept large donations from anti-hunting groups and they are non-responsive to 2A issues. Like I said, if you want to support them go ahead. Ill give my money to those that support 2A and don't take dollars from anti hunting groups because well, follow the $$. Simple as that.
:yeah: too many proven groups like rmef and mule deer foundation to even consider bha. Something is fishy with bha donors and even some of their positions so why bother.
Post by: Special T on June 15, 2021, 02:42:38 PM
Actually I got it from activist facts and from listening to some podcasts. Does the source of the information bother you or the information itself?
It cannot be disputed that accept large donations from anti-hunting groups and they are non-responsive to 2A issues. Like I said, if you want to support them go ahead. Ill give my money to those that support 2A and don't take dollars from anti hunting groups because well, follow the $$. Simple as that.
:yeah: too many proven groups like rmef and mule deer foundation to even consider bha. Something is fishy with bha donors and even some of their positions so why bother.
I don't think RMEF or MDF are comparable. Neither are advocates for sportsmen, just animals habitat. I think a better comparison is SCI and BHA as they are both advocacy groups.
Post by: idaho guy on June 15, 2021, 02:52:10 PM
Actually I got it from activist facts and from listening to some podcasts. Does the source of the information bother you or the information itself?
It cannot be disputed that accept large donations from anti-hunting groups and they are non-responsive to 2A issues. Like I said, if you want to support them go ahead. Ill give my money to those that support 2A and don't take dollars from anti hunting groups because well, follow the $$. Simple as that.
:yeah: too many proven groups like rmef and mule deer foundation to even consider bha. Something is fishy with bha donors and even some of their positions so why bother.
I don't think RMEF or MDF are comparable. Neither are advocates for sportsmen, just animals habitat. I think a better comparison is SCI and BHA as they are both advocacy groups.
I agree sci is a better comparison but still I would give my money to SCI. I don't care what others donate too. A few too many stinky things around BHA for me to ever want to send them money. I get it that not everyone sees it that way
Post by: mburrows on June 16, 2021, 07:45:38 AM
Actually I got it from activist facts and from listening to some podcasts. Does the source of the information bother you or the information itself?
It cannot be disputed that accept large donations from anti-hunting groups and they are non-responsive to 2A issues. Like I said, if you want to support them go ahead. Ill give my money to those that support 2A and don't take dollars from anti hunting groups because well, follow the $$. Simple as that.
:yeah: too many proven groups like rmef and mule deer foundation to even consider bha. Something is fishy with bha donors and even some of their positions so why bother.
I don't think RMEF or MDF are comparable. Neither are advocates for sportsmen, just animals habitat. I think a better comparison is SCI and BHA as they are both advocacy groups.
I agree as well SCI is a good one I think sportsman alliance is too.
Post by: Special T on June 16, 2021, 10:12:19 AM
Actually I got it from activist facts and from listening to some podcasts. Does the source of the information bother you or the information itself?
It cannot be disputed that accept large donations from anti-hunting groups and they are non-responsive to 2A issues. Like I said, if you want to support them go ahead. Ill give my money to those that support 2A and don't take dollars from anti hunting groups because well, follow the $$. Simple as that.
:yeah: too many proven groups like rmef and mule deer foundation to even consider bha. Something is fishy with bha donors and even some of their positions so why bother.
I don't think RMEF or MDF are comparable. Neither are advocates for sportsmen, just animals habitat. I think a better comparison is SCI and BHA as they are both advocacy groups.
I agree as well SCI is a good one I think sportsman alliance is too.
I like sportsmen alliance but they don't have much if any presence here. SCI has many chapters in the state and actually pulls a lot of political weight.
Post by: bearpaw on June 16, 2021, 10:53:11 AM
https://www.foundationforwildlifemanagement.org/
For example the next time you see a photo of antelope in WA, thank SCI!
Post by: Special T on June 16, 2021, 11:04:37 AM
Overall SCI is about the best group there is, each chapter does a lot of different projects, the national follows the politics pretty well too! Just to clarify something about RMEF, they eventually got very active in getting wolves managed, RMEF still donate a large sum of money every year to the Idaho group that funds hunters and trappers to help manage wolves.
https://www.foundationforwildlifemanagement.org/
F4WM is a great org. RMEF gave $ because they lost so many member over the wolf issue.
Post by: BowLake on June 16, 2021, 11:09:19 AM
Here is a list from the BHA website of some of their corporate sponsors - many of which are firearm manufacturers.
First Lite
Go Hunt
Vortex
Gerber
OnX
Savage Arms
Thompson/Center (part of the Smith and Wesson Brand)
Weatherby
CVA
Federal Premium Ammo
Sitka
Weston
FHF Gear
Do you think these companies just throw money around or do their due diligence on who they are supporting and putting their logo on?
By the way, RMEF is partnering with TRCP and BHA right now on a program to open landlocked public land for access to hunters. The Mule Deer foundation recently partnered with BHA on the Safe Passage 97 project in the Okanagan.
Do these partnerships taint the work that RMEF and MDF do in your eyes? Do you think they would work with BHA if they had a hidden agenda?
If you don't like the fact that there are people whose political ideologies don't align with yours that are part of these groups, great that's your right and you are entitle to it. But, I am not sure how I see how backing into political corners and pointing fingers is going to be a productive game plan for hunting moving forward, or anything for that matter.
Post by: bearpaw on June 16, 2021, 11:17:38 AM
Post by: bearpaw on June 16, 2021, 11:23:18 AM
Overall SCI is about the best group there is, each chapter does a lot of different projects, the national follows the politics pretty well too! Just to clarify something about RMEF, they eventually got very active in getting wolves managed, RMEF still donate a large sum of money every year to the Idaho group that funds hunters and trappers to help manage wolves.
https://www.foundationforwildlifemanagement.org/
F4WM is a great org. RMEF gave $ because they lost so many member over the wolf issue.
Exactly correct, but I don't see BHA doing that! :tup:
Post by: Special T on June 16, 2021, 11:28:50 AM
Can anyone share something positive that the Green Decoys group, part of the Environmental Policy Alliance has done for hunters? The group was created by a lobbyist for the oil and gas industry.... particularly to run smear campaigns on groups who were opposing fracking on public land (TRCP & BHA) and the transfer of public lands to states.... seem fishy? Do the lobbyist in the oil and gas industry have hunters and wildlife's best interest in mind?
Here is a list from the BHA website of some of their corporate sponsors - many of which are firearm manufacturers.
First Lite
Go Hunt
Vortex
Gerber
OnX
Savage Arms
Thompson/Center (part of the Smith and Wesson Brand)
Weatherby
CVA
Federal Premium Ammo
Sitka
Weston
FHF Gear
Do you think these companies just throw money around or do their due diligence on who they are supporting and putting their logo on?
By the way, RMEF is partnering with TRCP and BHA right now on a program to open landlocked public land for access to hunters. The Mule Deer foundation recently partnered with BHA on the Safe Passage 97 project in the Okanagan.
Do these partnerships taint the work that RMEF and MDF do in your eyes? Do you think they would work with BHA if they had a hidden agenda?
If you don't like the fact that there are people whose political ideologies don't align with yours that are part of these groups, great that's your right and you are entitle to it. But, I am not sure how I see how backing into political corners and pointing fingers is going to be a productive game plan for hunting moving forward, or anything for that matter.
BHA and TRCP do one good thing IMO. It is the access issue you describe. Unfortunately the other things they do overshadow it. I don't like the fact that they have supported increasing wilderness areas, and closing roads. Ironically reducing the kinds of access available.
Post by: bearpaw on June 16, 2021, 11:33:29 AM
Can anyone share something positive that the Green Decoys group, part of the Environmental Policy Alliance has done for hunters? The group was created by a lobbyist for the oil and gas industry.... particularly to run smear campaigns on groups who were opposing fracking on public land (TRCP & BHA) and the transfer of public lands to states.... seem fishy? Do the lobbyist in the oil and gas industry have hunters and wildlife's best interest in mind?
Here is a list from the BHA website of some of their corporate sponsors - many of which are firearm manufacturers.
First Lite
Go Hunt
Vortex
Gerber
OnX
Savage Arms
Thompson/Center (part of the Smith and Wesson Brand)
Weatherby
CVA
Federal Premium Ammo
Sitka
Weston
FHF Gear
Do you think these companies just throw money around or do their due diligence on who they are supporting and putting their logo on?
By the way, RMEF is partnering with TRCP and BHA right now on a program to open landlocked public land for access to hunters. The Mule Deer foundation recently partnered with BHA on the Safe Passage 97 project in the Okanagan.
Do these partnerships taint the work that RMEF and MDF do in your eyes? Do you think they would work with BHA if they had a hidden agenda?
If you don't like the fact that there are people whose political ideologies don't align with yours that are part of these groups, great that's your right and you are entitle to it. But, I am not sure how I see how backing into political corners and pointing fingers is going to be a productive game plan for hunting moving forward, or anything for that matter.
BHA and TRCP do one good thing IMO. It is the access issue you describe. Unfortunately the other things they do overshadow it. I don't like the fact that they have supported increasing wilderness areas, and closing roads. Ironically reducing the kinds of access available.
agreed and well stated
Post by: BowLake on June 16, 2021, 11:50:16 AM
Talk to the hunters and anglers in the eastern part of the country who can't get fuel to drive to go fishing or hunting, thanks to Biden closing down the keystone pipeline that will likely become more frequent across the country! We need oil and gas and the exploration and drilling and pipelines needed to obtain it. You better wake up tom the fact BHA is just a liberal front group that is essentially promoting preservation rather than conservation, pushing the democrat agenda, they definitely have their followers fooled into thinking they are for the greater good of sportsmen, I don't blame individual people for wanting to support our outdoors, but smart people want to know what the end game is really about with the groups they donate to! :twocents:
How did a pipeline that was not producing oil or completed create a fuel shortage? Never understood that. Sounds like a convenient narrative to me.
I think I am awake believe it or not... I just draw a different conclusion when I look at their work and stances. I may not be the smartest, but I have a good understanding of their endgame and I am onboard.
I think their is value in a variety of organizations that all attack different topics and collaborate when necessary. Maybe I am a little too optimistic...
Post by: Dan-o on June 16, 2021, 12:24:05 PM
Can anyone share something positive that the Green Decoys group, part of the Environmental Policy Alliance has done for hunters? The group was created by a lobbyist for the oil and gas industry.... particularly to run smear campaigns on groups who were opposing fracking on public land (TRCP & BHA) and the transfer of public lands to states.... seem fishy? Do the lobbyist in the oil and gas industry have hunters and wildlife's best interest in mind?
Here is a list from the BHA website of some of their corporate sponsors - many of which are firearm manufacturers.
First Lite
Go Hunt
Vortex
Gerber
OnX
Savage Arms
Thompson/Center (part of the Smith and Wesson Brand)
Weatherby
CVA
Federal Premium Ammo
Sitka
Weston
FHF Gear
Do you think these companies just throw money around or do their due diligence on who they are supporting and putting their logo on?
By the way, RMEF is partnering with TRCP and BHA right now on a program to open landlocked public land for access to hunters. The Mule Deer foundation recently partnered with BHA on the Safe Passage 97 project in the Okanagan.
Do these partnerships taint the work that RMEF and MDF do in your eyes? Do you think they would work with BHA if they had a hidden agenda?
If you don't like the fact that there are people whose political ideologies don't align with yours that are part of these groups, great that's your right and you are entitle to it. But, I am not sure how I see how backing into political corners and pointing fingers is going to be a productive game plan for hunting moving forward, or anything for that matter.
BHA and TRCP do one good thing IMO. It is the access issue you describe. Unfortunately the other things they do overshadow it. I don't like the fact that they have supported increasing wilderness areas, and closing roads. Ironically reducing the kinds of access available.
agreed and well stated
I think RMEF made a deal with the devil on that one.
Post by: bearpaw on June 16, 2021, 12:40:50 PM
Talk to the hunters and anglers in the eastern part of the country who can't get fuel to drive to go fishing or hunting, thanks to Biden closing down the keystone pipeline that will likely become more frequent across the country! We need oil and gas and the exploration and drilling and pipelines needed to obtain it. You better wake up tom the fact BHA is just a liberal front group that is essentially promoting preservation rather than conservation, pushing the democrat agenda, they definitely have their followers fooled into thinking they are for the greater good of sportsmen, I don't blame individual people for wanting to support our outdoors, but smart people want to know what the end game is really about with the groups they donate to! :twocents:
How did a pipeline that was not producing oil or completed create a fuel shortage? Never understood that. Sounds like a convenient narrative to me.
I think I am awake believe it or not... I just draw a different conclusion when I look at their work and stances. I may not be the smartest, but I have a good understanding of their endgame and I am onboard.
I think their is value in a variety of organizations that all attack different topics and collaborate when necessary. Maybe I am a little too optimistic...
Nice attempt to side step. You vilified oil and gas as being something bad, I elaborated that oil and gas are something needed in order to go hunting. That pipeline would have provided oil in the future, which is why I said "thanks to Biden closing down the keystone pipeline that will likely become more frequent across the country" that is speaking to more oil shortages in the future as a result of Biden's actions!
The bottom line the BHA seems to be a liberal tool to garner sportsman support on issues supported by their leaders, such as getting certain liberal candidates elected to office, stopping oil and gas, or closing more lands to users who are not capable of hiking in. The public land issue is a good issue, no hunters are opposed to that, none of the other sports groups are against public land hunting, I think it's just a feel good tool identified by BHA to recruit members and build enthusiasm to support their org. That's my opinion based on what I've seen, I am allowed to have my opinion just as you have yours!
Post by: BowLake on June 16, 2021, 01:07:19 PM
Talk to the hunters and anglers in the eastern part of the country who can't get fuel to drive to go fishing or hunting, thanks to Biden closing down the keystone pipeline that will likely become more frequent across the country! We need oil and gas and the exploration and drilling and pipelines needed to obtain it. You better wake up tom the fact BHA is just a liberal front group that is essentially promoting preservation rather than conservation, pushing the democrat agenda, they definitely have their followers fooled into thinking they are for the greater good of sportsmen, I don't blame individual people for wanting to support our outdoors, but smart people want to know what the end game is really about with the groups they donate to! :twocents:
How did a pipeline that was not producing oil or completed create a fuel shortage? Never understood that. Sounds like a convenient narrative to me.
I think I am awake believe it or not... I just draw a different conclusion when I look at their work and stances. I may not be the smartest, but I have a good understanding of their endgame and I am onboard.
I think their is value in a variety of organizations that all attack different topics and collaborate when necessary. Maybe I am a little too optimistic...
Nice attempt to side step. You vilified oil and gas as being something bad, I elaborated that oil and gas are something needed in order to go hunting. That pipeline would have provided oil in the future, which is why I said "thanks to Biden closing down the keystone pipeline that will likely become more frequent across the country" that is speaking to more oil shortages in the future as a result of Biden's actions!
The bottom line the BHA seems to be a liberal tool to garner sportsman support on issues supported by their leaders, such as getting certain liberal candidates elected to office, stopping oil and gas, or closing more lands to users who are not capable of hiking in. The public land issue is a good issue, no hunters are opposed to that, none of the other sports groups are against public land hunting, I think it's just a feel good tool identified by BHA to recruit members and build enthusiasm to support their org. That's my opinion based on what I've seen, I am allowed to have my opinion just as you have yours!
Yep, I stated before that you are entitled to your opinion. Never told you you were wrong.
Could you point out where I vilified that oil and gas industry? I stated that the oil and gas industry lobbyist (Berman) created a campaign to smear BHA. I then asked a question, if the oil and gas industry have the best interest of hunters and wildlife in mind? I personally don’t believe that they do.
The work that green decoy campaign ran was obviously effective.
Post by: bearpaw on June 16, 2021, 01:12:59 PM
Talk to the hunters and anglers in the eastern part of the country who can't get fuel to drive to go fishing or hunting, thanks to Biden closing down the keystone pipeline that will likely become more frequent across the country! We need oil and gas and the exploration and drilling and pipelines needed to obtain it. You better wake up tom the fact BHA is just a liberal front group that is essentially promoting preservation rather than conservation, pushing the democrat agenda, they definitely have their followers fooled into thinking they are for the greater good of sportsmen, I don't blame individual people for wanting to support our outdoors, but smart people want to know what the end game is really about with the groups they donate to! :twocents:
How did a pipeline that was not producing oil or completed create a fuel shortage? Never understood that. Sounds like a convenient narrative to me.
I think I am awake believe it or not... I just draw a different conclusion when I look at their work and stances. I may not be the smartest, but I have a good understanding of their endgame and I am onboard.
I think their is value in a variety of organizations that all attack different topics and collaborate when necessary. Maybe I am a little too optimistic...
Nice attempt to side step. You vilified oil and gas as being something bad, I elaborated that oil and gas are something needed in order to go hunting. That pipeline would have provided oil in the future, which is why I said "thanks to Biden closing down the keystone pipeline that will likely become more frequent across the country" that is speaking to more oil shortages in the future as a result of Biden's actions!
The bottom line the BHA seems to be a liberal tool to garner sportsman support on issues supported by their leaders, such as getting certain liberal candidates elected to office, stopping oil and gas, or closing more lands to users who are not capable of hiking in. The public land issue is a good issue, no hunters are opposed to that, none of the other sports groups are against public land hunting, I think it's just a feel good tool identified by BHA to recruit members and build enthusiasm to support their org. That's my opinion based on what I've seen, I am allowed to have my opinion just as you have yours!
Yep, I stated before that you are entitled to your opinion. Never told you you were wrong.
Could you point out where I vilified that oil and gas industry? I stated that the oil and gas industry lobbyist (Berman) created a campaign to smear BHA. I then asked a question, if the oil and gas industry have the best interest of hunters and wildlife in mind? I personally don’t believe that they do.
The work that green decoy campaign ran was obviously effective.
The oil and gas industry is concerned about making money, that's what business does. :dunno:
The same is true where any of us work! :dunno:
The last time I went hunting or fishing it required fossil fuels to even get away from my home, hunters and anglers had better be supportive of oil and gas or we will not be out enjoying our favorite past time! It's really pretty simple if you get off your BHA soapbox and give it some honest thought?
Post by: BowLake on June 16, 2021, 01:19:55 PM
Talk to the hunters and anglers in the eastern part of the country who can't get fuel to drive to go fishing or hunting, thanks to Biden closing down the keystone pipeline that will likely become more frequent across the country! We need oil and gas and the exploration and drilling and pipelines needed to obtain it. You better wake up tom the fact BHA is just a liberal front group that is essentially promoting preservation rather than conservation, pushing the democrat agenda, they definitely have their followers fooled into thinking they are for the greater good of sportsmen, I don't blame individual people for wanting to support our outdoors, but smart people want to know what the end game is really about with the groups they donate to! :twocents:
How did a pipeline that was not producing oil or completed create a fuel shortage? Never understood that. Sounds like a convenient narrative to me.
I think I am awake believe it or not... I just draw a different conclusion when I look at their work and stances. I may not be the smartest, but I have a good understanding of their endgame and I am onboard.
I think their is value in a variety of organizations that all attack different topics and collaborate when necessary. Maybe I am a little too optimistic...
Nice attempt to side step. You vilified oil and gas as being something bad, I elaborated that oil and gas are something needed in order to go hunting. That pipeline would have provided oil in the future, which is why I said "thanks to Biden closing down the keystone pipeline that will likely become more frequent across the country" that is speaking to more oil shortages in the future as a result of Biden's actions!
The bottom line the BHA seems to be a liberal tool to garner sportsman support on issues supported by their leaders, such as getting certain liberal candidates elected to office, stopping oil and gas, or closing more lands to users who are not capable of hiking in. The public land issue is a good issue, no hunters are opposed to that, none of the other sports groups are against public land hunting, I think it's just a feel good tool identified by BHA to recruit members and build enthusiasm to support their org. That's my opinion based on what I've seen, I am allowed to have my opinion just as you have yours!
Yep, I stated before that you are entitled to your opinion. Never told you you were wrong.
Could you point out where I vilified that oil and gas industry? I stated that the oil and gas industry lobbyist (Berman) created a campaign to smear BHA. I then asked a question, if the oil and gas industry have the best interest of hunters and wildlife in mind? I personally don’t believe that they do.
The work that green decoy campaign ran was obviously effective.
The oil and gas industry is concerned about making money, that's what business does. :dunno:
The same is true where any of us work! :dunno:
The last time I went hunting or fishing it required fossil fuels to even get away from my home, hunters and anglers had better be supportive of oil and gas or we will not be out enjoying our favorite past time! It's really pretty simple if you get off your BHA soapbox and give it some honest thought?
I have spent a lot of time thinking about it. And as I said earlier I come to a different conclusion than you. I don’t disagree on fossil fuels being necessary, I just put more value on being pro-habitat and access then fossil fuel when it comes to public lands.
Again, while I don’t wholly agree with your view, I understand and appreciate it.
Have a good day, and good luck this upcoming season.
Post by: bearpaw on June 16, 2021, 02:06:30 PM
Talk to the hunters and anglers in the eastern part of the country who can't get fuel to drive to go fishing or hunting, thanks to Biden closing down the keystone pipeline that will likely become more frequent across the country! We need oil and gas and the exploration and drilling and pipelines needed to obtain it. You better wake up tom the fact BHA is just a liberal front group that is essentially promoting preservation rather than conservation, pushing the democrat agenda, they definitely have their followers fooled into thinking they are for the greater good of sportsmen, I don't blame individual people for wanting to support our outdoors, but smart people want to know what the end game is really about with the groups they donate to! :twocents:
How did a pipeline that was not producing oil or completed create a fuel shortage? Never understood that. Sounds like a convenient narrative to me.
I think I am awake believe it or not... I just draw a different conclusion when I look at their work and stances. I may not be the smartest, but I have a good understanding of their endgame and I am onboard.
I think their is value in a variety of organizations that all attack different topics and collaborate when necessary. Maybe I am a little too optimistic...
Nice attempt to side step. You vilified oil and gas as being something bad, I elaborated that oil and gas are something needed in order to go hunting. That pipeline would have provided oil in the future, which is why I said "thanks to Biden closing down the keystone pipeline that will likely become more frequent across the country" that is speaking to more oil shortages in the future as a result of Biden's actions!
The bottom line the BHA seems to be a liberal tool to garner sportsman support on issues supported by their leaders, such as getting certain liberal candidates elected to office, stopping oil and gas, or closing more lands to users who are not capable of hiking in. The public land issue is a good issue, no hunters are opposed to that, none of the other sports groups are against public land hunting, I think it's just a feel good tool identified by BHA to recruit members and build enthusiasm to support their org. That's my opinion based on what I've seen, I am allowed to have my opinion just as you have yours!
Yep, I stated before that you are entitled to your opinion. Never told you you were wrong.
Could you point out where I vilified that oil and gas industry? I stated that the oil and gas industry lobbyist (Berman) created a campaign to smear BHA. I then asked a question, if the oil and gas industry have the best interest of hunters and wildlife in mind? I personally don’t believe that they do.
The work that green decoy campaign ran was obviously effective.
The oil and gas industry is concerned about making money, that's what business does. :dunno:
The same is true where any of us work! :dunno:
The last time I went hunting or fishing it required fossil fuels to even get away from my home, hunters and anglers had better be supportive of oil and gas or we will not be out enjoying our favorite past time! It's really pretty simple if you get off your BHA soapbox and give it some honest thought?
I have spent a lot of time thinking about it. And as I said earlier I come to a different conclusion than you. I don’t disagree on fossil fuels being necessary, I just put more value on being pro-habitat and access then fossil fuel when it comes to public lands.
Again, while I don’t wholly agree with your view, I understand and appreciate it.
Have a good day, and good luck this upcoming season.
Wishing you a great season too! :tup:
Post by: grundy53 on June 16, 2021, 05:43:42 PM
Can anyone share something positive that the Green Decoys group, part of the Environmental Policy Alliance has done for hunters? The group was created by a lobbyist for the oil and gas industry.... particularly to run smear campaigns on groups who were opposing fracking on public land (TRCP & BHA) and the transfer of public lands to states.... seem fishy? Do the lobbyist in the oil and gas industry have hunters and wildlife's best interest in mind?I thought Kimber was a big time sponsor? What happened to them?
Here is a list from the BHA website of some of their corporate sponsors - many of which are firearm manufacturers.
First Lite
Go Hunt
Vortex
Gerber
OnX
Savage Arms
Thompson/Center (part of the Smith and Wesson Brand)
Weatherby
CVA
Federal Premium Ammo
Sitka
Weston
FHF Gear
Do you think these companies just throw money around or do their due diligence on who they are supporting and putting their logo on?
By the way, RMEF is partnering with TRCP and BHA right now on a program to open landlocked public land for access to hunters. The Mule Deer foundation recently partnered with BHA on the Safe Passage 97 project in the Okanagan.
Do these partnerships taint the work that RMEF and MDF do in your eyes? Do you think they would work with BHA if they had a hidden agenda?
If you don't like the fact that there are people whose political ideologies don't align with yours that are part of these groups, great that's your right and you are entitle to it. But, I am not sure how I see how backing into political corners and pointing fingers is going to be a productive game plan for hunting moving forward, or anything for that matter.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: Bushcraft on June 24, 2021, 06:59:47 PM
Evidently he's under the impression that "shall not be infringed" is somehow "dangerously absolutist".
https://giffords.org/press-release/2021/06/former-firearms-executive-ryan-busse-joins-giffords/
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 25, 2021, 09:38:14 AM
Former Firearms Executive Ryan Busse Joins Giffords to Combat Gun Lobby Radicalization and Advance Responsible Gun Ownership.quote from the article- "Like me, the majority of gun owners no longer feel represented by the radical positions of the NRA and we reject the dangerous politics they fuel.”
Evidently he's under the impression that "shall not be infringed" is somehow "dangerously absolutist".
https://giffords.org/press-release/2021/06/former-firearms-executive-ryan-busse-joins-giffords/
I can relate with this. I own 30+ guns and enjoy hunting/shooting with them, but I do not feel like the NRA represents me at all. I think we have a gun problem in our country. I do not pretend to know the solution to gun violence
Post by: Bushcraft on June 25, 2021, 10:01:01 AM
Former Firearms Executive Ryan Busse Joins Giffords to Combat Gun Lobby Radicalization and Advance Responsible Gun Ownership.quote from the article- "Like me, the majority of gun owners no longer feel represented by the radical positions of the NRA and we reject the dangerous politics they fuel.”
Evidently he's under the impression that "shall not be infringed" is somehow "dangerously absolutist".
https://giffords.org/press-release/2021/06/former-firearms-executive-ryan-busse-joins-giffords/
I can relate with this. I own 30+ guns and enjoy hunting/shooting with them, but I do not feel like the NRA represents me at all. I think we have a gun problem in our country. I do not pretend to know the solution to gun violence
Those are rookie numbers. Haha...just kidding. ;)
What is this "gun problem" of which you speak?
I submit (and the data backs this up) that if your response relates to literally anything besides violent revolving-door-justice-system criminals and gang-bangers shooting at each other and innocent bystanders...then there isn't a "gun problem".
I also submit that a viable solution (and common sense backs this up) would be to convert violent repeat offenders into worm food instead of coddling them for a few days, weeks, months or years before turning them back out on the street to wreak more havoc on our otherwise peaceful and productive social fabric.
Post by: Dan-o on June 25, 2021, 10:16:52 AM
Former Firearms Executive Ryan Busse Joins Giffords to Combat Gun Lobby Radicalization and Advance Responsible Gun Ownership.quote from the article- "Like me, the majority of gun owners no longer feel represented by the radical positions of the NRA and we reject the dangerous politics they fuel.”
Evidently he's under the impression that "shall not be infringed" is somehow "dangerously absolutist".
https://giffords.org/press-release/2021/06/former-firearms-executive-ryan-busse-joins-giffords/
I can relate with this. I own 30+ guns and enjoy hunting/shooting with them, but I do not feel like the NRA represents me at all. I think we have a gun problem in our country. I do not pretend to know the solution to gun violence
Those are rookie numbers. Haha...just kidding. ;)
What is this "gun problem" of which you speak?
I submit (and the data backs this up) that if your response relates to literally anything besides violent revolving-door-justice-system criminals and gang-bangers shooting at each other and innocent bystanders...then there isn't a "gun problem".
I also submit that a viable solution (and common sense backs this up) would be to convert violent repeat offenders into worm food instead of coddling them for a few days, weeks, months or years before turning them back out on the street to wreak more havoc on our otherwise peaceful and productive social fabric.
Yeah, I don't think we have a gun problem. I think we have a societal problem..... A value of life problem, if you will.
One of my son's graduated from Montana State University a couple years ago. Freshmen have to stay in the dorms. Interesting thing: There are literally hundred of cased guns going into the dorm buildings on move-in day. They have a HUGE gun room right in the dorm building where you check in your firearms.
Guess when the last time one of those guns was used in a crime?
Why: The culture.
Why all the inner city shootings? The culture.
If you teach people that they are victims, and give them the moral authority to do whatever they please, this is what you get.
Want to solve the gun problem: Build a culture that values life and individual freedom.
Post by: Bushcraft on June 25, 2021, 10:35:50 AM
Post by: timberfaller on June 25, 2021, 11:02:16 AM
He would probably say the same thing if he'd been around when the concept of "interchangeable parts" entered into the firearm producing era! Hint: black powder days! But then he probably flunked History 101.
Post by: ducks4days on June 25, 2021, 12:16:38 PM
Post by: Bushcraft on June 25, 2021, 12:40:47 PM
Has anybody read the book?
A more apropos question might be, "Has anybody given their money to an enemy of freedom?"
Post by: ducks4days on June 25, 2021, 02:24:33 PM
Has anybody read the book?
A more apropos question might be, "Has anybody given their money to an enemy of freedom?"
I moreso mean, is anybody speaking on things he actually wrote, or what words they made up in their head they think he might have written? I'm all for vilifying the guy based on what he did actually do, but maybe we should wait to string somebody up by their toes until we have a reason we can point to. Otherwise we are fighting straw men which actually weakens our arguments instead of strengthening them.
Post by: Dan-o on June 25, 2021, 03:54:12 PM
Has anybody read the book?
A more apropos question might be, "Has anybody given their money to an enemy of freedom?"
I moreso mean, is anybody speaking on things he actually wrote, or what words they made up in their head they think he might have written? I'm all for vilifying the guy based on what he did actually do, but maybe we should wait to string somebody up by their toes until we have a reason we can point to. Otherwise we are fighting straw men which actually weakens our arguments instead of strengthening them.
Some of his direct quotes are enough for me.
I don't need to read his book.
And for the record, I don't blame automobile manufacturers for drunk driving.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 25, 2021, 08:50:21 PM
You never know, maybe we could learn something from the author. It doesn't hurt to know the arguments...
Post by: Bushcraft on June 25, 2021, 10:16:29 PM
Maybe someone should read it and try to put the quotes into context.... it's kinda like reading the headlines but not the article.
You never know, maybe we could learn something from the author. It doesn't hurt to know the arguments...
I humbly submit that anyone feeling financially compelled to give money to access information from someone that signed on to Gifford's anti-gun group is mystifyingly missing the forest for the trees. As was, and continues to be, the case with BHA and it's wildly leftist anti-gun, anti-hunting, anti-access, anti-use purse-string pullers.
But, by all means...go ahead further enrich him just to satisfy your curiosity.
Post by: grundy53 on June 26, 2021, 07:13:02 AM
Not feeling like the NRA represents you and joining up with the Giffords are worlds apart. That's like cutting off your head because you don't like how the barber cut your hair.Former Firearms Executive Ryan Busse Joins Giffords to Combat Gun Lobby Radicalization and Advance Responsible Gun Ownership.quote from the article- "Like me, the majority of gun owners no longer feel represented by the radical positions of the NRA and we reject the dangerous politics they fuel.”
Evidently he's under the impression that "shall not be infringed" is somehow "dangerously absolutist".
https://giffords.org/press-release/2021/06/former-firearms-executive-ryan-busse-joins-giffords/
I can relate with this. I own 30+ guns and enjoy hunting/shooting with them, but I do not feel like the NRA represents me at all. I think we have a gun problem in our country. I do not pretend to know the solution to gun violence
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: bearpaw on June 26, 2021, 07:23:07 AM
Maybe someone should read it and try to put the quotes into context.... it's kinda like reading the headlines but not the article.
You never know, maybe we could learn something from the author. It doesn't hurt to know the arguments...
You been listening to too much liberal media, guns in the 1800's and 1900's were just as lethal as guns today. The problem is the people using the guns for violence, start cleaning up the gangs and thugs and you will solve the problem. Its the low lifes who are killing people it's not honest Americans who legally own guns that are the problem. You are an educated person, think about that!
Post by: Igor on June 26, 2021, 07:36:27 AM
Maybe someone should read it and try to put the quotes into context.... it's kinda like reading the headlines but not the article.
You never know, maybe we could learn something from the author. It doesn't hurt to know the arguments...
That's like reading a book by Al Sharpton so you "could learn something from the author".
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 29, 2021, 06:20:30 PM
Precisely. If you get all your info in an echo chamber you're really limiting your points of view. You don't have to agree with someone to understand their argument, right?Maybe someone should read it and try to put the quotes into context.... it's kinda like reading the headlines but not the article.
You never know, maybe we could learn something from the author. It doesn't hurt to know the arguments...
That's like reading a book by Al Sharpton so you "could learn something from the author".
Post by: Igor on June 29, 2021, 07:44:29 PM
Precisely. If you get all your info in an echo chamber you're really limiting your points of view. You don't have to agree with someone to understand their argument, right?Maybe someone should read it and try to put the quotes into context.... it's kinda like reading the headlines but not the article.
You never know, maybe we could learn something from the author. It doesn't hurt to know the arguments...
That's like reading a book by Al Sharpton so you "could learn something from the author".
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 29, 2021, 08:15:45 PM
Then you're further ahead to start learning about ducks. I'll grab a copy and offer it to the group when I'm done reading. It might be a fun book clubPrecisely. If you get all your info in an echo chamber you're really limiting your points of view. You don't have to agree with someone to understand their argument, right?Maybe someone should read it and try to put the quotes into context.... it's kinda like reading the headlines but not the article.
You never know, maybe we could learn something from the author. It doesn't hurt to know the arguments...
That's like reading a book by Al Sharpton so you "could learn something from the author".
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
Post by: snake on June 29, 2021, 08:23:48 PM
Is this comment a joke?Smells like a duck...Yup. BHA board member...
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
https://www.backcountryhunters.org/board_of_directors
Don't see him on the board link above....
BHA sticks to their mission: public lands, the preservation and access to them. BHA does not dip into gun rights just like you wouldn't expect NRA to stand up for public lands.
Busse's opinion on guns is his and not BHA's. Just like Romney and Cheney's opinions are theirs, not the GOP.
Post by: Igor on June 29, 2021, 08:29:05 PM
And, if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then I'm smart enough to not have to read a book to know it's a duck.Then you're further ahead to start learning about ducks. I'll grab a copy and offer it to the group when I'm done reading. It might be a fun book clubPrecisely. If you get all your info in an echo chamber you're really limiting your points of view. You don't have to agree with someone to understand their argument, right?Maybe someone should read it and try to put the quotes into context.... it's kinda like reading the headlines but not the article.
You never know, maybe we could learn something from the author. It doesn't hurt to know the arguments...
That's like reading a book by Al Sharpton so you "could learn something from the author".
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 29, 2021, 08:30:57 PM
Lol!!! You need to stop believing what you read on huntWa and talk to some members and leadership. You don't know what you're talking about here.He isn't anymore. He was for years. As far as the rest of your statement. You can try to justify their actions or lack there of anyway you like. But I'm still done with them. Have been for a few years. Their top guys are not the kind of people I want representing me.Smells like a duck...Yup. BHA board member...
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
https://www.backcountryhunters.org/board_of_directors
Don't see him on the board link above....
BHA sticks to their mission: public lands, the preservation and access to them. BHA does not dip into gun rights just like you wouldn't expect NRA to stand up for public lands.
Busse's opinion on guns is his and not BHA's. Just like Romney and Cheney's opinions are theirs, not the GOP.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
You don't want the top guys representing you because they are willing to reach across the aisle and work with other groups? They should only work with groups who share 100% the same values across the board. Hmm... sounds reasonable. Digging in and toeing the party line has been super productive in this great country recently... let's continue to believe that the "others" are the enemy on every topic and not be subjective.
What actions did BHA take or not take that have you fired up? Were you upset when their board in CA had a huge role in stopping the bear ban in CA? What about the work they have done in eastern states to allow hunting on Sundays? Work they are doing in Washington to add new access and hunting opportunity? Did they lead the charge on the LWCF - something that every single user of this forum benefits from?
Were you upset when the NRA didn't take a stand on the transfer of public lands? I didn't hear anything from them when CA bear ban was proposed. Are they involved in fighting the push to remove any hunting besides subsistence hunting in two units in AK?
Damn green decoys...
They don't reach across the aisle. They are already on the other side of the aisle.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk