- Banned
- #161
orionthehunter1
WKR
Nice, not only do they have accounting on par with SFW they are funded by left wing wacko organizations. This thread just keeps getting better
I haven't given them any money. It is somewhat counterproductive to be backed by many anti-hunting and anti-gun groups. I am more concerned over the questionable accounting practices and lack of transparency
Counting land owner tags as a portion of non resident quota is some interesting math.
1 those tags are assigned to residents to do with as they please.
2. Residents have equal access to those tags opening thier check book same as a non resident.
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
The fact that you guys think BHA, TRCP, Trout Unlimited, whoever would do anything but oppose "Big energy" is hilarious. Get your heads out of the sand and figure out what they are actually doing.
Of course those organizations are going to be against handing over federal lands, letting them be pillaged for their gas or mineral reserves. Of course they are going to oppose and lobby against energy and development. That's what your giving them your money for is it not?
I'm sure some people would be shocked to see their donor list, and be aghast at what else those donors have contributed to. Natural Resource Defense Council, Audubon Society the Sierra Foundation are all other orgs that have received money from donors on BHA's donor list.
Maybe you guys should do some homework before you just throw money at an organization if your shocked by that.
Land protection and animal conservation are a very liberal thing in the political field, it shouldn't be shocking that donors that support that would support more radical groups that want to protect those things to.
That article laughingly describes protecting our public lands as a detriment to sportsmen when it's actually the complete opposite.
On the flip side, how many guys cut checks because Randy Newberg and Steve Rinella tell them it's a good idea?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There's a thread here that will present both sides better than I can. But basically some people feel it's a slippery slope of a solution looking for a problem that doesn't exist. This, it turns out, is the basis of my friend determining they are the enemy.406, I'm out of the loop on the quiet waters deal. You got a Cliff Notes version?
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
I agree assigning cash value to game is what has ruined game management based on its fundamental model.
I'm afraid that landowner tags are never going anywhere probably the only truly unchangeable element in the whole management plan.
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
Is this the same guy that pays pennies to run his cattle on federal land?
Yep I get the intent but it's well past off setting his damage. Wherever it's here to stay large land owner and outfitter association have plenty of lobby power
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
So when did Leasees get LO tags on federal land lease holdings?? Umm Never....
End of the day Federal Land is by majority fridge habitat... guess who owns the non fringe habitat.... private citizens. Gripe, toss stones, mock etc private landowners all you want, but at the end of the day their tolerance is needed for sustainable game populations.
hunters make the LO tag system feasible. They also make it a non break even, break even or surplus endeavor for the landowner.
I can remember when deer where shot on sight in farm country. I also remember not long ago county commissioners signed off on crop Depredation permits by the stack
And you don't think the ranchers that own land on the fringe of public don't have the lease for the public next to it? Many of the ranches that have the leases are big ranches right next to public land and in their minds it is their land.
Also if LO tags are there to offset damage from wildlife on private group why is it that a LO tag is good for an entire unit and not just the private land of the LO?
I haven't given them any money. It is somewhat counterproductive to be backed by many anti-hunting and anti-gun groups. I am more concerned over the questionable accounting practices and lack of transparency
Disclosure: I'm about to go spend a weekend with fellow CO BHA members up at the chapter rendezvous at Sylvan Lake. There will be guys there that have ben on the lookout for public lands since before the average member of this forum was born. I didn't have anything to do with the creation of the statement.
EDIT: Alright, re-reading the last paragraph, I can agree the statement about bringing CO in line with other states went too far. An NR BHA member could complain about that. I agree that perhaps someone made this personal. I'll bring it up to the group this weekend.
If you want to create some conspiracy theory about BHA being fake, I can't help you.
In my opinion, TXCO misleads anyone reading this thread with the basic premise. CO BHA is NOT advocating for reducing NR opportunity!
That's the real freakin quote from the statement. Opposes increases. The statements about other states is added to support the ridiculousness of the request to increase NR tags, showing CO already gives NRs higher opportunity than elsewhere.
Essentially, the core of the issue comes from outfitters saying to CPW: "hey, if you give NRs more tags, you can help out your money problems!" Of course, outfitters will make more money, too, since the proportion of NRs that hire outfitters and guides is significantly higher.
Then, you also run into the issue of the hard vs soft cap as mentioned above, where you actually have a BETTER chance at some tags as an NR than an R. That's messed up! Can you really argue that its not?
Lastly, there are certain tags R's are already supposed to have an 80/20 cap, and that's not being followed.
I can appreciate the fact that BHA is watching out for the DIY resident hunter on this matter. What other organization is?
Here's the whole statement, since it was curiously left out of the OP: