Hello friends,
I’ve given to both these organizations in the past but I’m wondering are they separate entities or related?
Any experience with either organization? Both worthy of donations on this Give to the Max day?!

Save the Boundary Waters is a campaign started by Ely residents, business owners and organizations that has broadened into a national effort. The actual fiscal sponsor responsible for managing the money is Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness:

Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness 2020 Impact Report

Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness is based in St. Paul and was founded in 1976 in response to an effort to split the BWCA in two. It was instrumental in passage of the 1978 legislation that created the BWCAW and made it what it is today.

Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness

isn't the Friends of the bwca also responsible for the push to rid the bwca of motors, too?

Both are fine organizations fighting the good fight.

Why should we have a Chilean mining corporation with a terrible environmental record despoil America's favorite wilderness?

Mocha: "isn't the Friends of the bwca also responsible for the push to rid the bwca of motors, too?"

That's been my understanding as well, and it's one of the reasons I don't donate to them. It doesn't mean I don't acknowledge the other important work they're doing, but I prefer to give my charitable dollars to organizations that are more focused.

An org not mentioned above, and one which I personally choose to support, is Sportsmen for the Boundary Waters. Their focus is on 3 issues: Stopping mining in the BWCA and its watershed; Permanent reauthorization and funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund; and the growth/sustainability of the Moose population in NE Minnesota. (They do want to be able to hunt Moose in our state in the future, but they acknowledge the population is nowhere near where it would need to be for that to happen). They appear to be very transparent about their goals and I appreciate that.

Tom Landwehr was the MN DNR Commissioner who granted a crucial mining permit for PolyMet, a separate copper-nickel mining project in northern MN. If he had not granted that permit, it would really have been a blow to all sulfide mining in MN. Because he granted the permit, it allowed Twin Metals to gain momentum right along with PolyMet.
Mr. Landwehr granted that permit in November of 2018, He became the executive director of the Campaign to Save the Boundary Waters in March of 2019. I don't trust anyone who grants a permit for a sufide mine, then quickly turns around to lead an organization that is opposed to sulfide mining.
In September of 2021, Mr. Landwehr retired from the Campaign to Save the Boundary Waters. I'm glad he's out, but my trust is with Friends of the Boundary Waters.

DaveM: "Tom Landwehr was the MN DNR Commissioner who granted a crucial mining permit for PolyMet, a separate copper-nickel mining project in northern MN. If he had not granted that permit, it would really have been a blow to all sulfide mining in MN. Because he granted the permit, it allowed Twin Metals to gain momentum right along with PolyMet.
Mr. Landwehr granted that permit in November of 2018, He became the executive director of the Campaign to Save the Boundary Waters in March of 2019. I don't trust anyone who grants a permit for a sufide mine, then quickly turns around to lead an organization that is opposed to sulfide mining.
In September of 2021, Mr. Landwehr retired from the Campaign to Save the Boundary Waters. I'm glad he's out, but my trust is with Friends of the Boundary Waters.
"

Landwehr has explained that the laws and rules governing mining permits actually do not allow the DNR to deny a permit simply because the mine will cause pollution in the BWCA. All they have the authority to do is regulate how much pollution is allowed.

This is why the current mining rule revision process now taking place is so important, so they might have the ability to deny a permit because of its location next to the BWCA.

Push to rid the b waters from motor boats.Bite your tongue Mocha... lol

Thanks for pointing out that the law is being reconsidered and that it may change for the better. But there is no guarantee that it will improve, and Mr. Landwehr was commissioner with the existing law.
If the DNR cannot deny a permit simply because the mine will cause pollution in the BWCA, but they do have the authority to regulate how much pollution is allowed, couldn't they insist that zero pollution is allowed?

yogi59weedr: "Push to rid the b waters from motor boats.Bite your tongue Mocha... lol"

Oh yeah, I am NOT in favoring of banning motors.

thegildedgopher: "

Mocha: "isn't the Friends of the bwca also responsible for the push to rid the bwca of motors, too?"

That's been my understanding as well, and it's one of the reasons I don't donate to them. It doesn't mean I don't acknowledge the other important work they're doing, but I prefer to give my charitable dollars to organizations that are more focused.


An org not mentioned above, and one which I personally choose to support, is Sportsmen for the Boundary Waters. Their focus is on 3 issues: Stopping mining in the BWCA and its watershed; Permanent reauthorization and funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund; and the growth/sustainability of the Moose population in NE Minnesota. (They do want to be able to hunt Moose in our state in the future, but they acknowledge the population is nowhere near where it would need to be for that to happen). They appear to be very transparent about their goals and I appreciate that."

I spoke with the director of Sportsmen for the BW early on, as I am hard pressed to support an org that in title represents only sports MEN. I certainly felt heard, but at that point they already had many sponsors and did not want to change their masthead/name. I find it an unfortunate choice of words, not inclusive. While I support their cause, my money goes to the other BW orgs.

chessie: "I spoke with the director of Sportsmen for the BW early on, as I am hard pressed to support an org that in title represents only sports MEN. I certainly felt heard, but at that point they already had many sponsors and did not want to change their masthead/name. I find it an unfortunate choice of words, not inclusive. While I support their cause, my money goes to the other BW orgs."

I can’t argue with that.

I’d love to help, donate, and support some of the organizations trying to protect the BWCAW. I have a hard time with how far left the organizations seem to be. I called and asked some questions at one point. Pretty much sounded like they funneled money to support one group. I even went to an event in Minneapolis pretty sure it was Save the Boundary Waters. Realized it when a buddy and I went, it was basically put on by a local political group. After that experience, I’m supportive and always advocate for its protection, but can’t really go farther.

thegildedgopher: "

chessie: "I spoke with the director of Sportsmen for the BW early on, as I am hard pressed to support an org that in title represents only sports MEN. I certainly felt heard, but at that point they already had many sponsors and did not want to change their masthead/name. I find it an unfortunate choice of words, not inclusive. While I support their cause, my money goes to the other BW orgs."

I can’t argue with that."

Me either. But thanks for pointing out the group and the differences between groups. It does get confusing!!

Sorry; couldn't resist.

People's Front of Judea

BWPaddler: "

thegildedgopher: "

chessie: "I spoke with the director of Sportsmen for the BW early on, as I am hard pressed to support an org that in title represents only sports MEN. I certainly felt heard, but at that point they already had many sponsors and did not want to change their masthead/name. I find it an unfortunate choice of words, not inclusive. While I support their cause, my money goes to the other BW orgs."

I can’t argue with that."

Me either. But thanks for pointing out the group and the differences between groups. It does get confusing!!"

If you can get behind everything about SFBW but their unfortunate choice of gendered language in their name, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers might be the sort of organization you feel comfortable supporting. They have chapters all across the country. Their primary issues are access to public lands, wilderness opportunities for all, preservation of public lands & wilderness, and ethical pursuit of fish & game. They are very much involved in the effort to stop mining in the BWCA as well. Here's a link to the MN Chapter of BHA.

This whole gender thing…


We are all offending someone.
This recent trend to change everything to gender neutral is going a step further. What about people that don’t identify as a gender? Or those that feel male today and female tomorrow? What about those that don’t feel they are a person at all. Some people might scoff at me but it’s happening.
What bathroom shall we all use?

If they change it to Sportspeople for wilderness, someone will be offended.

This whole think blows my mind, and not in a good way.

In my line of work I was a journeyman electrical worker. Not anymore.
I’m now a journey person. They changed it in my newest contract.

My boss used to be a foreman, now he’s a foreperson.

Tom
Him, his, they

tumblehome: "This whole gender thing…



We are all offending someone.
This recent trend to change everything to gender neutral is going a step further. What about people that don’t identify as a gender? Or those that feel male today and female tomorrow? What about those that don’t feel they are a person at all. Some people might scoff at me but it’s happening.
What bathroom shall we all use?


If they change it to Sportspeople for wilderness, someone will be offended.


This whole think blows my mind, and not in a good way.


In my line of work I was a journeyman electrical worker. Not anymore.
I’m now a journey person. They changed it in my newest contract.


My boss used to be a foreman, now he’s a foreperson.


Tom
Him, his, they



"

Union?

Gaidin53: "I’d love to help, donate, and support some of the organizations trying to protect the BWCAW. I have a hard time with how far left the organizations seem to be. I called and asked some questions at one point. Pretty much sounded like they funneled money to support one group. I even went to an event in Minneapolis pretty sure it was Save the Boundary Waters. Realized it when a buddy and I went, it was basically put on by a local political group. After that experience, I’m supportive and always advocate for its protection, but can’t really go farther."

Environmental protection generally only gets support from one party. Given that these organizations' missions are to get regulations passed to protect the BWCA they really only have one party to work with. Trying to get republican politicians to work with them would be like pushing water uphill.

If you support what they're doing you should support them and that really should be the end of it.

tumblehome: "This whole gender thing…

We are all offending someone.

This recent trend to change everything to gender neutral is going a step further. What about people that don’t identify as a gender? Or those that feel male today and female tomorrow? What about those that don’t feel they are a person at all. Some people might scoff at me but it’s happening.
What bathroom shall we all use?

If they change it to Sportspeople for wilderness, someone will be offended.

This whole think blows my mind, and not in a good way.

In my line of work I was a journeyman electrical worker. Not anymore.
I’m now a journey person. They changed it in my newest contract.

My boss used to be a foreman, now he’s a foreperson.

Tom
Him, his, they"

We see things from where we stand. I am not into being PC just for the sake of being PC. I owned my first shotgun and started hunting at age eleven. I have hunted birds since then (waterfowl, grouse, pheasants, quail, dove, wild turkey...). For what it's worth, I've also been in the military and spent considerable time with an M16, but that's another story. I also started fishing before I could ride a bike.

You've no idea the experiences I've had as a female who hunts, many times alone, especially turkey hunting. From stares and rude comments, to bizarre questions, to outright inappropriate behavior. On a couple of occasions, I was glad to have a gun in my hand!

Perhaps it's different for women today, as I've been at it for half a century. Because we can't include everyone does not mean we ought not try to be more inclusive. Does "sportsperson" role off the tongue as readily as "sportsman"? Probably not, but I'm sure with some practice, it would become manageable.

Here's a thought exercise: let's flip it. Take the organization that is open to all, and meant to represent everyone, but name it, "Sportswomen for the BWCA."

Would you join?

Chessie,

I am the most inclusive person you will ever meet.
I am speaking more about the fact that we all offend someone. And there is a substantial change happening where some humans do not identify as male, female, or human.

The term 'man' or 'men' has a long history in identification of a person and used to be referred to a someone in gender-nuetral terms. The word 'man' or 'men' did not necessarily identify that term as a male human.

The cultural shift in thinking has brought about the dissection of every word used to identify humans' gender and they are being torn apart. In my line of work, many women were journeymen workers. It was a noble title for a person who has mastered a craft.

Many nouns in the English language have multiple meanings,

Tom

I agree with Tom.. There are many times that the word " men" is not gender specific. Around here most of the sternmen in lobster boats are women. Firemen are women. We could go on. Is the suffix "people" more apropos ? Probably.

As far as comments go , if you have been a solo female canoeist you are used to really dumb remarks. Used to be more prevalent than now. It's as big a deal as you let it be, at least for me. Its OK that not everyone feels as I do. Language is always changing..

I think the idea that the word "men" was historically meant to be inclusive is a little bit wishful thinking. In the last half century or so it has been more commonly intended that way, and I'm sure many people do mean it that way (and no ill will toward those that do, or anyone else).

But even in those cases, because of the history of exclusion, when you hear the word as part of a title or general description it makes it all too easy to assume or picture the person as being male. I'm sure that leaves a large chunk of people feeling not particularly welcome. If that's the intention, no one is going to be fined or jailed for not being inclusive enough with their language. But their organization may be creeping toward the edge of obsolescence.

Language IS always changing, and I bet this organization will be changing their name sooner or later. I'm not a "sportsman" so it doesn't really affect me, but I don't understand the foot dragging on things like this...

tumblehome: "This whole gender thing…



We are all offending someone.
This recent trend to change everything to gender neutral is going a step further. What about people that don’t identify as a gender? Or those that feel male today and female tomorrow? What about those that don’t feel they are a person at all. Some people might scoff at me but it’s happening.
What bathroom shall we all use?


If they change it to Sportspeople for wilderness, someone will be offended.


This whole think blows my mind, and not in a good way.


In my line of work I was a journeyman electrical worker. Not anymore.
I’m now a journey person. They changed it in my newest contract.


My boss used to be a foreman, now he’s a foreperson.


Tom
Him, his, they
"

Truth

tumblehome: "Chessie,


I am the most inclusive person you will ever meet.
I am speaking more about the fact that we all offend someone. And there is a substantial change happening where some humans do not identify as male, female, or human.


The term 'man' or 'men' has a long history in identification of a person and used to be referred to a someone in gender-nuetral terms. The word 'man' or 'men' did not necessarily identify that term as a male human.


The cultural shift in thinking has brought about the dissection of every word used to identify humans' gender and they are being torn apart. In my line of work, many women were journeymen workers. It was a noble title for a person who has mastered a craft.

Many nouns in the English language have multiple meanings,


Tom"

Language changes overtime. While it used to have many meanings it no longer does for the majority of the population.

...Language changes overtime. While it used to have many meanings it no longer does for the majority of the population. ...

Actually it's the minority of the population but they have the largest voice right now. Some words do not change over time

feMALE
woMAN

The origin of the word male meant person. Having the word male in a noun does not constitute it being of male gender.