Got into a FB debate with Land. Seems he was triggered when I stated BHA pushing renewable energy development wasn't part of BHA mission statement and that it was him carrying favor with the climate crowd and proving his "WOKENESS".
He called me "John Muir", I told him next time he talked to Mr. Posewitz perhaps he should ask him about that damn in Yellowstone that didn't get built in exchange for "some scratch" for wildlife.
So. I joined BHA because I thought it was a group that was FINALLY going to get past R vs D, young vs old, religious vs heathen, and focus on what we all shared, love of public land.
But I watched as more frequently Land thought it was his job to tweet lobs at a President. I watched his personal politics start to expose themselves more frequently.
I guess the membership was to look past politics and focus on the land, but Tawney was free to do otherwise.
In its membership are a lot of miners, oil guys, contractors, developers, all of whom joined and supported even though it meant it could hurt them personally.
Then. Suddenly BHA(TRCP, TU), decide to enter the climate change debate. The goal wasn't development might happen so the smallest footprint is the goal. It was BHA now publically supported wind and solar, while continually bashing other energy sources.
Why? I've read BHA mission statement a gazillion times. No where does it enter debates that dont involve PRESERVING AND PROTECTING PUBLIC LAND.
I left. In doing so I've been contacted by numerous others who have as well.
It sucks. I love the mission. The idea of "from the party of hunting, fishing, public land(Rinella quote) was supposed to have a voice, only now to be drug into the black hole of climate change and carbon sources.
So. Long write to get to this. I believe the leadership needs to go. If we are going to have cred with miners, oil guys, ranchers, hippies, kayakers, etc, BHA can't be getting away from their very specific mission, PRESERVING PUBLIC LAND.
Thoughts?
He called me "John Muir", I told him next time he talked to Mr. Posewitz perhaps he should ask him about that damn in Yellowstone that didn't get built in exchange for "some scratch" for wildlife.
So. I joined BHA because I thought it was a group that was FINALLY going to get past R vs D, young vs old, religious vs heathen, and focus on what we all shared, love of public land.
But I watched as more frequently Land thought it was his job to tweet lobs at a President. I watched his personal politics start to expose themselves more frequently.
I guess the membership was to look past politics and focus on the land, but Tawney was free to do otherwise.
In its membership are a lot of miners, oil guys, contractors, developers, all of whom joined and supported even though it meant it could hurt them personally.
Then. Suddenly BHA(TRCP, TU), decide to enter the climate change debate. The goal wasn't development might happen so the smallest footprint is the goal. It was BHA now publically supported wind and solar, while continually bashing other energy sources.
Why? I've read BHA mission statement a gazillion times. No where does it enter debates that dont involve PRESERVING AND PROTECTING PUBLIC LAND.
I left. In doing so I've been contacted by numerous others who have as well.
It sucks. I love the mission. The idea of "from the party of hunting, fishing, public land(Rinella quote) was supposed to have a voice, only now to be drug into the black hole of climate change and carbon sources.
So. Long write to get to this. I believe the leadership needs to go. If we are going to have cred with miners, oil guys, ranchers, hippies, kayakers, etc, BHA can't be getting away from their very specific mission, PRESERVING PUBLIC LAND.
Thoughts?