Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Sale of public lands and drilling everywhere

I really don't care about the politics.

Bottom line is, Federally administered public lands are mine and I want them to STAY MINE.

Won't happen if they are given to the states.

Damn Dave, that was really skillful how you worked Ted Turner in there!! But you left out Jane Fonda, are you saving her for later? Not to mention Podesta, who really has zero to do with anything under discussion.

You're a master of innuendo and guilt by association, I'll give you that.

But if you think BHA is not a sportsman's organization, you're delusional. I've been to a couple of their get-togethers, and haven't yet met a single person who isn't a die-hard fisherman, hunter, or both. I think you just need to get out more. Your computer screen isn't a good substitute for the real world.

BHA is also now a force to be reckoned with, as much as you hate to hear it. With what, 10,000 members or so? Wide-open spaces have a broad appeal that spans ideological divides.

Well, for most people anyway. That's why any large-scale transfer of federal land to the states is DOA. Sorry if you can't accept that.

Who said anything about large scale?

Ask Dave, he'd like it all turned over.

I don't think so Dave, where's your evidence for that? I think you're confusing him with his brother.

Forgive me for being skeptical, it's just that your first gambit was to paint him as out of touch and unfamiliar with hunting in the American west. That turned out not to be the case.

So now he's a leftist.

The only problem with that theory (beyond the lack of any evidence) is that you have to go all the way back to Reagan to find an administration that's as serious about rolling back federal agency overreach, appointing conservative Supreme Court justices, and protecting the 2nd amendment as the one he is now part of. Ironically Dave, this administration is your best hope for scaling back the ESA since Reagan. Would you dispute that?

And if Don Jr. really was registered as a democrat in 2016, I don't care. I think we need more like him.

But I see you saved your "smoking gun" for last:

His sister may be soft on climate change. Seriously Dave, is that the best you can do? Next thing, you'll be telling us that Dick Cheney's daughter is soft on gay marriage. How many people in the US do you think have a relative or two who are soft on climate change?

Smoke,
I've looked at the tax returns, many of which are in fact available at that website I suggested:
The Economic Research Institute
Their 990 search page is here:
http://www.eri-nonprofit-salaries.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=NPO.Search

And I'll respond to this fib of yours:
"Not to mention Podesta, who really has zero to do with anything under discussion."

That's utterly not true. Not only has the Center for American Progress opposed any kind of localizing control of federal lands policy, both during and "after Podesta," but the High Country News wrote a feature on John back in 2015 -- here's a couple of direct pull quotes from that story:

"Add in his [Podesta's] record under Bill Clinton — the sweeping 2001 “Roadless Rule” protecting 58 million acres administered by the U.S. Forest Service, and the 19 national monuments and conservation areas, many in the West, that Clinton declared in his second term in office — and Podesta can claim a green legacy that even Teddy Roosevelt would be proud of."

and a bit further down:

"Says Bruce Babbitt, Clinton’s Interior secretary, “The hidden hand of John Podesta is involved in every environmental advancement accomplished in the Clinton and Obama administrations.”"

So sure, John Podesta has nothing, NOTHING to do with any of this, even though none less than the former secretary of the Interior lauds his "hidden hand?" Even though he was up to be Energy Secretary if Madame Hillary had been elected? I'm the one not blowing smoke here.

You BHA guys can deflect and attack me all you want, but I'm okay with that. I'm not trying to convince you, but hoping some other members read this and don't fall for the sucker pitch.
There are government records out there that prove at least some of the sources of BHA's funding, it's just a matter of doing the research -- and my considered conclusion is that BHA was created SPECIFICALLY in order to function as a political front group that serves the interests of its major funders, who have never shown any interest in directly supporting either gun rights or the regulated take of game animals.

Well, Smokey, you did score one point of truth -- this from no less than the Washington Post in April of last year, linking back to VICE:
"New York has a closed primary system, which means that only voters registered as Democrats or Republicans can vote in their respective party's primary. Both Ivanka and Eric missed the deadline to change their registration from unaffiliated to Republican and therefore will have to sit out next week's election. Trump's eldest son, Donald Jr., is a registered Republican in New York, so at least one of Trump's children will be able to vote for their father."
So DJT Jr is a Republican (which isn't saying much since the GOP in the Northeast is not the West's GOP), but his other kids are "independent" meaning they might cast a token general election vote.
As for how independent Ivanka is, I checked Federal Elections Commission records. She gave to Hillary in 2007, that great gun rights support Charles Rangel in 2008, in 2014 to DOnald Norcross (a New Jersey Democrat, NRA F rated), Eleanor Holmes Norton D-DC, maxed out to Chuck Schumer in 2010....and that's just the tip of her donations. How about 15,000 in 2006 to the DCCC, you know, soft money for Debbie Wasserman Schultz to play with?
Eric? Schumer, just a grand, and joint fundraising for those Republican greats, McCain and Flip McRomney, who both led the anti-Trump charge, mmmm? Buyer's remorse?
Junior? Schumer, just a grand, and five grand to a "leadership PAC" that supports Democrats.
Any wanting a "fact check" can go here to get on FEC's database:
http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/qind/

Damn Dave, you're on a roll now!! It's only a matter of time before you can weave in Nancy Pelosi and Bernie Sanders!!

They're all BHA donors, who knew?




He has nothing to do with what I'm talking about Dave, which is BHA and Don Jr's support of it.

That's right Dave and once again the "facts" you seem so sure of turn out not to be. And by the way, I got my information in ten minutes with a google search.....and I'm not even a journalist. And I almost forgot, LOL, skillful insertion of "The Washington Post" that was a really good one but it's not the source of my information.

Do you research all your "facts" this carefully, or just spew 'em and hope people believe them?



Finally something we can agree on. I think we're making real progress Dave.

I'm no fan of new national monuments being designated, or even being proposed, but this is one of the most uninformed and ridiculously dumb articles I have ever read.

Ever.

Skinner's words of wisdom

"a small number of very large privately owned ranches with river frontage, specifically targeted by BLM"
After working in the public sector for my entire career (albeit, a short career so far) I have never see a hint of the BLM, FS, USFWS or any other land management agency trying to "take" land. With very few exceptions, everyone I have worked with over the years absolutely respects private property, and the rights that go with it.

Nope, you conflated two clauses into one line. The first clause before the comma is language DIRECTLY from the internal "Our Vision, Our Values" memo that was leaked out about the agencies' long-term strategy for Land and Water Conservation Fund monies.
That might not be going on at YOUR level in whatever agency you're at, Tinman, but the leadership certainly thought about this strategy.
Only the "specifically targeted" part was MY writing, a logical conclusion being that buying a "small number of very large ranches" with desirable base properties and associated grazing rights is a very cost effective means of controlling use on larger tracts. No ranch? No grazing. No ranch, no residents, either.
Sorry you can't accept that. It's true, I wasn't sued over the article.
As for the rest of you, who just might like a West that still has Westerners around to help pull you out of the gumbo, this internal paper was entitled "Our Vision, Our Values" and should be floating around somewhere on the Internet. I recommend anyone here interested in the truth read my article and then the memo, very carefully.

Smoker,
How come you didn't respond to my stuff about Podesta? Oh, I'm right about him?
Haven't bothered to check out New Venture Fund, either? You know, the money stream aimed at killing the "transfer" baby?

And you don't think political flows of money matter? People give money to politicians and political causes because they expect to gain something -- I'll contribute to people whom I expect will vote the way I like, and it's the same with the nonprofits. Why would an elk hunter donate to BOTH Defenders of Wildlife and a "hunting" group like BHA? That just doesn't compute.

Do you really think that BHA's goals aren't influenced in the least by Mr. Wyss's donations -- or at least Mr. Swiss Wyss might think that BHA is a really good fit for Mr. Wyss's overall battle plans to turn as much of the West as possible into glorified parklands?

Tell ya whut -- why don't you and Randy and Buzz go to BHA leadership and ask for the BHA's Schedule B to be posted HERE as a link, just for 2013 and 2014, just the donors who paid in over two percent of BHA's funds, leave the actual grassroots members alone.
Who provided the other 400 or so grand alongside Wyss? Nothing to be ashamed of, right? No conclusions to be drawn from that, mmmm?

I did Dave, you may want to go back and read my post. Podesta is irrelevant and just another red herring you've thrown out. Besides, Podesta is small potatoes, when are you gonna drop the hammer and work Hillary into the conversation?

And if you want to start keeping track of responses, go back and tally up the questions I've posed to you that have gone unanswered, then we can talk.
Y



I don't know Dave, why would an elk hunter do that? I don't know any elk hunters who donate to both so I can't help you.

Why don't you find an elk hunter who's done that and ask him the question?

Oh, that's right, it's another one of those questions you're not really interested in the answer to. Because it's more useful to you unanswered. You love those, dontcha?




Well let's see Dave, I believe there's an easy way to answer that one. You could check and see what BHA's goals were before Mr. Wyss made his donations, and then check and see if the goals changed any after the donations. But then again, that would answer your question and I'm pretty sure you're not interested in answers, just posing questions.





Why don't you Dave? I'm not really interested. Because if a Swiss billionaire wants to contribute big $$ and it helps fend off the short-sighted, harebrained idea of selling off the one asset that makes hunting in North America unique in the world, I'm all for it.

Podesta is fundamentally relevant. Leader of a 40 million dollar "government in exile for liberals" (google that); White House Chief of Staff to Obama, campaign COS to Hillary, Hillary's planned nominee for Energy Secretary, and high-dollar consultant to a major foreign donor to "progressive" political nonprofits....that's REAL small potatoes, a total red herring.
If an elk hunter won't donate, why is Mr. Wyss donating like he does, and why are these "hunters and anglers" happily taking his anonymous money?
And do you think dark money groups like BHA would ever disclose their funders openly? Of course not, because that would expose the realities behind the facade.

Enjoy your denial, Smokey, right up until the point you hit bottom. It'll be sooner than you think, sadly.

You're pretty damn delusional if you really think that.

I'm no fan of upper management in various federal land management agencies, because of some incompetent management decisions, and those in Washington specifically, but no private ranches are being "targeted"...law enforcement, both BLM/FS/USFW and local law would be all over it.

That corrupt BLM LEO in Salt Lake City is a true POS, and he is being dealt with accordingly. That's the only example I have ever heard of with a crooked ranger.

I don't know where your "I wasn't sued over the article" comment came from...or what relevance being sued because of an opinion piece has on the topic.

Dave, if you get any more shrill some small town that's missing an air raid siren is gonna kidnap you and strap you to the water tower. I haven't seen so much baloney in one place since the great Oscar Mayer train derailment.




Dave, I hate to be the one to break the news, but Podesta, Hillary, and Obama are no longer relevant because they lost the election. I understand that their loss has deprived you of your biggest bogeymen and supply of red herrings but at some point you need to come to the realization that they are all non-starters in this particular debate.

Or maybe you can explain how a "planned nominee for Energy Secretary" who will never actually be Energy Secretary is relevant?

And as far as donors such as Mr. Wyss, is it your position that there should be laws or regulations restricting how much and where they donate their own money to non-profits? It sure sounds like it Dave, but I think our courts have ruled on that and found otherwise:




And Dave, if the expenditures are made public 10-22 months after they're made as you stated above, why are you now calling the donations "anonymous?" If they were truly anonymous, we wouldn't be having this conversation, would we?





First Dave, your question above is an obvious red herring/false proposition because elk hunters do in fact donate heavily to BHA. And you know that to be true, which is the sad part. In fact the three BHA members you just addressed in your previous post (Randy, buzz, myself) are all avid elk hunters, as are almost all the BHA members I know. The thing we all have in common is that we like to hunt away from roads, vehicles, and ORVs because that's where the best hunting is. And that's why BHA was formed, because hunters and fishermen willing to walk a few miles to get away from the road want to make sure that short-sighted idiots like you don't give it all away.


It's a really simple concept Dave, but one that's obviously beyond your grasp since you feel obligated to come up with all sorts of vague and nefarious objectives and conspiracies to explain BHA's existence.

Second, I already told you why BHA would accept donations from any wealthy donor--to help stop the short-sighted, harebrained plan to sell off the one asset that makes hunting in North America unique in the world.

Third, calling BHA a "dark money organization" is another red herring/false proposition because it flies in the face of the definition of "dark money." Maybe you should look that up. BHA attempts to influence legislation and policy on public land use by working with stakeholders and elected representatives. Not to affect the outcome of elections themselves. Dark money is given and used to influence the outcome of elections by funding ad campaigns and the like.

But I think you knew that.

Someone above compared you to Glenn Beck, but I think that's an unfair comparison.

Because you make Glenn Beck look like Walter Cronkite.

Smoke, the fact is, if Hillary had won, Podesta would in fact be calling the shots on behalf of Hillary. It was a close call not just for gun rights, which you need to hunt, but for major economic sectors in the West. You may be okay with an economy that is seasonal and fickle, but I'm not.
Given that all you can do is accuse me of red herrings, either you don't or won't understand the nonprofit parallel universe and this is not the forum to try to explain it. Or you do understand it, and don't want anyone to figure it out.
BHA is classic political dark money in that it doesn't fully disclose very major donors. The only way to trace donors is if one already knows they exist, and BHA would rather nobody know they draw support from a foreign billionaire.
And billionaire or not, 300 grand in one check is not chump change, if anyone gave 300 grand to Jon Tester in one check, even the Billings Gazette would have to stand up and notice, maybe actually report.
You do know that BHA's Land Tawney was involved with a PAC that dumped over 400 grand of last-days cash into the 2012 Senate race against Rehberg versus Tester, money that after the election (when it was too late to matter) was sourced from the "nonprofit, nonpartisan" League of Conservation Voters?
Yeah, you probably do.
I just hope some of the many people who have looked at this thread realize that when it comes to "hunter and angler" narratives, there's a lot under the rug that the big money people would like to keep secret.

Didn't read the memo yet, did you? Do yourself a favor.

Dave - I'm trying to stay out of this because I really don't have a well formed opinion - but I have read all the posts. It seems to me your whole argument is built on woulda, coulda, shoulda, and innuendo. I don't care if Hilary Clinton wants to donate $4 gazillion dollars to the NRA, Trump's campaign, or the fund for hootchiepucker fish - it doesn't matter. What does matter is the strings that come attached to that money. If that's your point, state that overtly - without all the pontification and innuendo.

I'm a pretty simple guy and not all that bright. In simple terms, what is the cause and effect you have been trying to convey. I don't want to hear any conjecture, innuendo, pontification, none of that. Simply: Joe Smith gave organization X $Y and the organization did Z in conflict with __________ which harms _________.

Dave, I'll start at the bottom and work my way up.

It's hard to do more than accuse you of red herrings because red herrings are your stock in trade and all you're giving me to work with. But I'm not only accusing you of red herrings, I've been shooting them down like the wounded ducks they are. It's not my fault that the shooting is so good.

And I think I've done a little more than just shoot them down. I've managed to work some actual facts into the discussion on BHA--an accurate portrayal of its core constituents, the reason it was created, and its mission, which is not as you continually imply to absorb dark money and finance political campaigns.

And let's talk about an economy that's seasonal and fickle. I'm not "OK with it" as you say (that sounds like a personal attack Dave), just stating the cold hard reality and providing factual information. I didn't shape the economy here, it is what it is. And the only reason I brought it up in the first place was in response to your observation that public land policy should be driven by what's best for the local economy. I just felt it necessary to explain our local economic drivers to you because you'd obviously overlooked them.

And I can tell you from personal experience that there's nothing more fickle and cyclical than the extraction industries operating on our public lands. I came out of school in 1982 with a degree predicated on plentiful jobs in oil & gas, with hard-rock mining as my Plan B. Oil & gas exploration companies were hiring our entire graduating class when I was in my second year. The only problem was, two years later both oil & gas and hard rock mining were in the toilet and the number of unemployed people on the street looking for jobs with my same education and 5-10 more years experience was staggering. I caught a break and landed in a different field but a lot of people weren't so lucky.

Fast forward to today in the Bakken. In places where you couldn't find a hotel room two years ago there are now only remnants of that high water mark. Abandoned man camps and abandoned campers with out-of-state plates. And the timber market is the same, cyclical and driven by the housing industry and prices of Canadian products.

And before you go painting me as a greenie preservationist who doesn't understand where the gasoline in my car comes from (oops, you already did that, was that one of those personal attacks you mentioned?), I'm all for multiple use on our public lands, including extractive industries. I'm just fortunate that I don't have to make my living in that sector.

As far as the election being a close call, yes it was. If Hillary had been elected, gun rights would've surely taken a hit. If the DNC had played fair, Bernie Sanders could be our president right now and he would've been worse yet. And if Jill Stein had won the election, it could have meant real trouble for extractive industries.

And if the moon was made of cream cheese and frogs had wings, maybe we could come up with a way to send 'em up there to bring some of that back. Which is another way of saying, so what Dave, what's your point, besides weaving in another reference to Podesta and Hillary?

Lastly Dave, Land Tawney can do whatever he wants in his free time, that's really none of my business. And I don't care what the league of conservation voters does or doesn't do, I'm not part of that organization. They are free to collect money and spend it as they see fit, as long as they do it within the law. Just like every other PAC.

If shutting down PACs is your thing, why don't you start a new thread on that? It's surely not the topic of discussion here. Just another red herring.