Nothing disenfranchises me more at this point then partisanship no matter where I see it. That has been the theme of JSW’s consistent criticism of BHA. Republicans good, Democratics bad. It’s narrow and quite frankly idiotic considering that we have gotten such poor representation from BOTH parties for so long. The Paradigm has shifted. This needs to be called out on all fronts when it’s witnessed and endorsed because it has no pragmatic value to achieving our goals and objectives. The Tawny statement on Zinke is a perfect example. Servered no purpose but to disenfranchise members and provide some justification for criticism of BHA. That’s not productive and shows poor leadership and judgement.
P&Y vs BHA?
- Thread starter Trial153
- Start date
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
True in so many cases, on all sides. Humans seem to have a damn hard time kicking tribalism - it's at the root of many of our most challenging problems these days.
As an aside, here is a recent commentary of tribalism in the US - https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/10/the-threat-of-tribalism/568342/
Last edited:
Nameless Range
Well-known member
How people have time to monitor two hunting forums is beyond me. 
Flipping through the thread on the other site, the SCI vs BHA is a non-issue, and outside of that thread I don't think of them as antagonistic. If I wanna go shoot a penned up zebra, or travel to some far away land with which I have no connection or history to kill some critters I won't even get to put in my freezer, I'd probably know more about SCI. I'm sure they do some good things, but 99% of the criticisms I hear about BHA are BS. I hunt and fish public lands, enjoy the burning of boot leather, and care about things like access and see the enormous value programs like LWCF, so BHA and their focus on those types of things has a lot more to do with my values.
Flipping through the thread on the other site, the SCI vs BHA is a non-issue, and outside of that thread I don't think of them as antagonistic. If I wanna go shoot a penned up zebra, or travel to some far away land with which I have no connection or history to kill some critters I won't even get to put in my freezer, I'd probably know more about SCI. I'm sure they do some good things, but 99% of the criticisms I hear about BHA are BS. I hunt and fish public lands, enjoy the burning of boot leather, and care about things like access and see the enormous value programs like LWCF, so BHA and their focus on those types of things has a lot more to do with my values.
How people have time to monitor two hunting forums is beyond me.
Flipping through the thread on the other site, the SCI vs BHA is a non-issue, and outside of that thread I don't think of them as antagonistic. If I wanna go shoot a penned up zebra, or travel to some far away land with which I have no connection or history to kill some critters I won't even get to put in my freezer, I'd probably know more about SCI. I'm sure they do some good things, but 99% of the criticisms I hear about BHA are BS. I hunt and fish public lands, enjoy the burning of boot leather, and care about things like access and see the enormous value programs like LWCF, so BHA and their focus on those types of things has a lot more to do with my values.
Exactly why is so disconcerting seeing the president of the P&Y club fostering or encouraging an us vs them arguemnet based on the two organizations.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
I dare someone to find an organization they completely agree with, and if you think you found one it's because you don't know all that much about them, likely because they don't want you to.
I think the majority of the criticism of BHA is based on tribalism as VG pointed out. Some conservatives just can't be in the same group as liberals so they're find whatever "evidence" they need to tell themselves it's a bad organization.
I think this holds true to organizations too. The toxicity of our politics has sicken every aspect of our lives.
I think the majority of the criticism of BHA is based on tribalism as VG pointed out. Some conservatives just can't be in the same group as liberals so they're find whatever "evidence" they need to tell themselves it's a bad organization.
I think this holds true to organizations too. The toxicity of our politics has sicken every aspect of our lives.
We all choose the organizations that best fit our interests, Neffa. Some are, as mentioned trenched within a tribalized mentality and it seeps or flash flood-like covers the main scene. P&Y, BHA, etc, etc... If your attempt is to share that organizations must meet 100% of all member's interest... well - that is far fetched. Most members within flex to a degree. There are certain flex points though that cause members to re evaluate their membership and $$$ given. Only so much money is available to give - we all choose as best fits.
Best to all - It is great many do give money and time to the various conservation/environmental organizations.
Best to all - It is great many do give money and time to the various conservation/environmental organizations.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
I am not interested in joining either SFW or BHA, and don't see much difference in either. They are both more about politics than anything else. I agree that there is no perfect fit for anyone, but do support the ones that fit me best.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
When people are ditching BHA because of comments against a guy who's actions continually reduced the quality and quantity of fish and game habitat, those people are grasping at straws.
I don't buy that. An organizations public statements need to serve a purpose, its not about spouting off to hear yourself talk. Tell what purpose a polarizing statement about the RESIGNING Zinke served? It didn't accomplish a damn thing except to polarize us. We would have been better off wishing him the best of luck in his future endeavors and saying that we look forward to working with the incoming SOI whomever that maybe.
Towney and whoever thought this was good idea was wrong.
Last edited:
The Bowsite thread caused tread caused me to reassess the press release from a pragmatic sense. Meaning that while I don’t agree with JSW’s ill infomed thoughts that public lands and waters are a nonexistent political issue, I do be we could have under this opportunity to better advance this important issue. So with that in mind I contacted the press office and president of BHA as member. The letter is pasted below.
**********
This press release is a useless missed opportunity. Zinke is resigning; there is no need to comment - in a very one-sided manner btw - on his performance record at this point. This press release should have been more strategic. It should have emphasized BHA's vision and goals toward the protection of public lands and waters for hunters and anglers and how those values and talents should be demonstrated in the future Secretary. Instead, the statement is unnecessarily abrasive and divisive and could weaken our influence among our contemporaries, not to mention erode the diversity within this organization itself. This statement has already drawn attention and criticism on other boards and forums. Is that really what BHA wants people talking about?
Interestingly, on our website, don't we judge Zinke's record? Go look at it. Our assessment of his performance is essentially 50/50. Where are the corresponding positives in this press release? BHA's press release implies our wholesale agreement with the statements and that is clearly not the case.
This was a missed opportunity. The BHA CEO took precious PR time to discuss old news and rail against the government instead of reaffirming the organization's mission as a way to expand the membership and influence the future appointment. Is this an indication of his inability to advance this organization with a strategic, forward-looking action bias? Sincerely James Fowles
**********
This press release is a useless missed opportunity. Zinke is resigning; there is no need to comment - in a very one-sided manner btw - on his performance record at this point. This press release should have been more strategic. It should have emphasized BHA's vision and goals toward the protection of public lands and waters for hunters and anglers and how those values and talents should be demonstrated in the future Secretary. Instead, the statement is unnecessarily abrasive and divisive and could weaken our influence among our contemporaries, not to mention erode the diversity within this organization itself. This statement has already drawn attention and criticism on other boards and forums. Is that really what BHA wants people talking about?
Interestingly, on our website, don't we judge Zinke's record? Go look at it. Our assessment of his performance is essentially 50/50. Where are the corresponding positives in this press release? BHA's press release implies our wholesale agreement with the statements and that is clearly not the case.
This was a missed opportunity. The BHA CEO took precious PR time to discuss old news and rail against the government instead of reaffirming the organization's mission as a way to expand the membership and influence the future appointment. Is this an indication of his inability to advance this organization with a strategic, forward-looking action bias? Sincerely James Fowles
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
The first part of your letter was some good constructive criticism, then diminished in effect by the more caustic personal criticism question quoted.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Many folks view long term effective advocacy as careful bridge-building where little is served by broad inflammatory rhetoric. It is perfectly reasonable to assess the effectiveness of future giving by assessing the tone being set by an organization's leadership. If BHA communications continue a slant towards partisan "the sky is falling" rhetoric I will take my funds elsewhere, just as I have done with the NRA. YMMV, but certainly not "straw grasping".
Point taken. In fairness this isnt the first time that I felt Tawny went foot to month. And quite frankly the Zinke resignation wasn't an especially difficult situation to navigate. So for a simple press release to so easily degrade into such a divisive rant. The question is valid in my mind.
beginnerhunter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2016
- Messages
- 1,320
Trial153 I completely agree with you. But given the location of BHA HQ, I think being on the front lines has hardened their hearts somewhat towards the current administration and the GOP in general. So there is an urge to pile on that's hard to ignore. But if Republicans no longer think of public land users as constituents, they'll stop listening to us altogether.
I think positive feedback could work as well or better than negative. For example, recently a House Bill passed to expand a wilderness area in my state by acquiring some private property adjacent to the existing wilderness area. It was sponsored by a Republican House member from my state. That's an opportunity for me to thank that Republican and promise my support if he continues to promote such legislation. If nothing else, makes him feel good about what he did.
So I agree they could have pointed out the positives, if for no other reason than to let the public know BHA isn't partisan, it's a member of the public lands party. Thanks for pointing that out to them.
I think positive feedback could work as well or better than negative. For example, recently a House Bill passed to expand a wilderness area in my state by acquiring some private property adjacent to the existing wilderness area. It was sponsored by a Republican House member from my state. That's an opportunity for me to thank that Republican and promise my support if he continues to promote such legislation. If nothing else, makes him feel good about what he did.
So I agree they could have pointed out the positives, if for no other reason than to let the public know BHA isn't partisan, it's a member of the public lands party. Thanks for pointing that out to them.
