Join the BHA?

[WRO]

It depends on the situation. Access could come in the future, or it could be used in a swap that benefits access.

This was a large landlocked tract, but BHA (and many others) worked hard and eventually lots of collaboration and generosity came together securing access to awesome country for all of us:

Public Access to New Mexico Wilderness Achieved

Lots of people wanted the Saboinoso sold off too because of its access issues, but I’m glad it wasn’t.

The real work seems to have been done by the Wilderness land trust Wyss foundation. To my knowledge, the sabinoso was never listed for disposal..

WRO,

Also the horse creek easement agreement would pull together lots of those smaller tracts in Eastern MT.

You can see the map in the draft EA:

http://fwp.mt.gov/fwpDoc.html?id=83958

A few small pieces of ground were brought together by the tax payer footing the bill.

That doesn't change the status of pieces like 400 acre timber patch completely in held in by 2 private ranches on my buddies place, all of various 40 to 160 acre chunks buried in private timberland's and ranches across the west. As for trading stock, everytime the goverment steps up to the trading block, we as public land users get screwed. Literally every trade deal in Oregon I've seen has involved us getting screwed and taking the short end of the stick.

 

[SandyCreek]

maybe members could demand work on something tangible, like find a piece that would allow access to a bigger block of land locked ground and make it a sole BHA project

 

[WRO]

It's who they take money from that concerns me
.

They report their financials and don’t donate to political organizations or endorse political candidates.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[Matt Cashell]

The real work seems to have been done by the Wilderness land trust Wyss foundation. To my knowledge, the sabinoso was never listed for disposal..

Lots of people worked hard on it. It was an awesome collaborative effort. BHA had people there on the ground with Sec. Zinke and the Senators. That seems like something.

A few small pieces of ground were brought together by the tax payer footing the bill.

In fairness, you asked about small parcels. Additionally it wasn’t a “few.” It is 26 public parcels up to 640 acres each. The easement puts over 30 contiguous square miles into an easement for public access, including hunting. That seems like a much better result than selling those “few small pieces” off. I sure am thankful for the ongoing efforts by BHA and others to make this deal happen.

 

[mtwarden]

Legit question, what value does 40 acres of landlocked public land with no access have for you? How about 160 Acres of LL public with no public access?

well actually quite a bit; "land locked" lands might not be land locked in the future- "corner hopping" may be legitimized by the courts or legislation; landowners change and sometimes landowners change their mind, so an easement might be possible

my best example was a large ranch in Eastern Montana- in the neighborhood of 150 sections, for the most part deeded, but he did have numerous sections and lots of part sections of BLM- he wanted it all deeded, the BLM negotiated a swap and hunters ended up with about a 15 section of new BLM. on another ranch a similar swap was negotiated, this one blocked a large chunk of state lands

had someone simply said let's sell the damn stuff, hunters (and other recreationists) would have lost big time

 

[Chad.frank]

I have read through all the post and can say that this is a good conversation and everyone is entitled to what they believe.

I am a BHA member and have seen action in my state that I believe has helped out the Wisconsin sportsman. Like: fighting against railroad locked public land and stream access, fighting for additional stream access, public land clean-up projects, public land adoption, fighting to stop public land sale. These have all been recent actions by BHA in WI.

I also think if you took some time to actually do some research on a state by state basis, info you can find on BHA's website, you will find out that BHA is more then just hosting pint nights and instagrams photos. Educate yourself on what they are doing before you make an opinion.

Furthermore, if companies like First lite, Sitka, Seek outside and others have given BHA sponsorship, and if Steven Rinella, Ryan Callaghan and Randy Newberg, give support to BHA, I believe that they do and will keep the sportsman in mind while making their decisions.

That is my take on BHA and why I will continue to be a member. But like others have said BHA might not be for everyone, based on your beliefs and opinions. Just make sure they are informed opinions.

I’m a BHA Member in WI and couldn’t agree more with what was wrote here. I know it says hunters and anglers in the name but public lands aren’t only used by people like us. This is why BHA reaches across the aisle to companies like Patagonia. They represent a very large amount of public land users. And as far as I know will not fight for hunting or fishing issues because that’s not what they are about. Public land access is what they are about and trying to help keep the environment and waters as clean as possible.

There are organizations like RMEF, Wild Sheep Foundation, Mule Deer Foundation, Ducks Unlimited, Ruffed Grouse Society just to name a few that fight for hunting rights. But if there isn’t any land to hunt on then all those organizations wouldn’t matter either.

The simple fact is that we as hunters are the minority and for us to continue to stick our heads in the sand and think that everything will remain the same forever is a mistake.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mike7]

I have no problem at all with BHA supporting causes that anti-hunters also support. I have run into mountain climbers and hikers a lot, and have almost never had an issue with them, or them any major issues with me seemingly.

I also have zero problems with the view of BHA that Matt portrays as his experiences and knowledge of BHA...and in fact Matt makes me want to sign back up tomorrow.

What has given me pause previously, whether fair or not, has been the comments of other clearly very progressive/regressive BHA members on this site and others, who strongly support BHA, but with whom I agree zero with otherwise...and also BHA's mission statement doesn't make me feel fully reassured regarding this.

I guess you could say that I am fully for conserving land/habitat, but not necessarily for more Wilderness areas or National Parks or Monuments. Many of the wild areas that need saving (and don't need to become "Wilderness" in my opinion) are the prior farms and ranches in lower elevation wintering areas that now are being sold off in order to build track homes. Wilderness is something that most Americans will never access. Open spaces near population centers however, could be used by many people and animals alike.

I don't see crony capitalism as the primary threat to access to public lands right now or to wildlife & fisheries (as some BHA members apparently do), but rather over population and poor land management/goals. My assessment is not theoretical, but rather based upon observing the politics while working for the USFS previously and also watching my access to public lands be increasingly affected over the past 4 decades by reduction of trail and/or road maintenance (which used to be just one of the things paid for by timber), proposed wilderness areas, fees for recreation areas and parks, trailhead/boat ramp/& parking fees & passes at the federal and state levels, ridiculous poorly instituted permitting systems, confusing poorly enforced travel plans, etc.

How is the average person going to possibly be supportive of public lands and hunting as a conservation tool, when they know little about public lands and never will, except what they read on the progressive websites...like that loggers have ruined all of the fisheries and wildlife habitat, and hunters are riding around in UTV's exterminating grizzlies and wolves. These people will never get out to check the lack of validity of these claims. Many of these people are now reimbursed by the gov't for their unhealthy food choices, health insurance, housing, drugs, etc., but are made to drive 2 towns away to get a permit to go to the woods and then also charged to park their car if they ever get to the woods.

I am not blaming BHA of course for all of this emphasis by the gov't being completely bass akwards in my opinion, but I hope that they can appreciate this bigger long range picture of the advantages of multi-use and encouraging the outdoors as a healthy free thing to be promoted rather than discouraged, and which will mean accessible public land for the average person who can't afford outfitters or wilderness tour guides.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

I have no problem at all with BHA supporting causes that anti-hunters also support. I have run into mountain climbers and hikers a lot, and have almost never had an issue with them, or them any major issues with me seemingly.

I also have zero problems with the view of BHA that Matt portrays as his experiences and knowledge of BHA...and in fact Matt makes me want to sign back up tomorrow.

What has given me pause previously, whether fair or not, has been the comments of other clearly very progressive/regressive BHA members on this site and others, who strongly support BHA, but with whom I agree zero with otherwise...and also BHA's mission statement doesn't make me feel fully reassured regarding this.

I guess you could say that I am fully for conserving land/habitat, but not necessarily for more Wilderness areas or National Parks or Monuments. Many of the wild areas that need saving (and don't need to become "Wilderness" in my opinion) are the prior farms and ranches in lower elevation wintering areas that now are being sold off in order to build track homes. Wilderness is something that most Americans will never access. Open spaces near population centers however, could be used by many people and animals alike.

I don't see crony capitalism as the primary threat to access to public lands right now or to wildlife & fisheries (as some BHA members apparently do), but rather over population and poor land management/goals. My assessment is not theoretical, but rather based upon observing the politics while working for the USFS previously and also watching my access to public lands be increasingly affected over the past 4 decades by reduction of trail and/or road maintenance (which used to be just one of the things paid for by timber), proposed wilderness areas, fees for recreation areas and parks, trailhead/boat ramp/& parking fees & passes at the federal and state levels, ridiculous poorly instituted permitting systems, confusing poorly enforced travel plans, etc.

How is the average person going to possibly be supportive of public lands and hunting as a conservation tool, when they know little about public lands and never will, except what they read on the progressive websites...like that loggers have ruined all of the fisheries and wildlife habitat, and hunters are riding around in UTV's exterminating grizzlies and wolves. These people will never get out to check the lack of validity of these claims. Many of these people are now reimbursed by the gov't for their unhealthy food choices, health insurance, housing, drugs, etc., but are made to drive 2 towns away to get a permit to go to the woods and then also charged to park their car if they ever get to the woods.

I am not blaming BHA of course for all of this emphasis by the gov't being completely bass akwards in my opinion, but I hope that they can appreciate this bigger long range picture of the advantages of multi-use and encouraging the outdoors as a healthy free thing to be promoted rather than discouraged, and which will mean accessible public land for the average person who can't afford outfitters or wilderness tour guides.

Awesome man. Well said

 

[Billinsd]

Awesome man. Well said

Excellent!!!

 

[Billinsd]

excellent!!!

 

[BuzzH]

I know this likely wont change any minds, but I'll give some specifics on what the Wyoming Chapter has done since forming just a few short years ago.

1. Worked with the WYGF Department and Commission to clear up the aircraft/drone regulations. We recognized right off that statute and regulation were in conflict. Under the old regulation, there was NO legal way to fly into State Trust lands and hunt it legally (had to wait 24 hours to hunt, and its illegal to camp on State lands). We changed the definition of aircraft to include drones, and made it illegal to scout from the air between 8/1-1/31 of the following year. We had unanimous support from the GF, public, and the commission.

Scouting with Drones and Aircraft Now Illegal in Wyoming

2. Another key piece we worked on was the way that elk tags were being distributed. We recognized and found that because of the early NR elk draw, either R or NR were being shorted tags due to that early draw. We made the department aware of the situation and the result was that Resident hunters received an additional 300+ LQ elk tags due to the discrepancy in the early draw. We also recommended a solution that the department adopted to keep it from happening again. Without our intervention, several hundred Residents would have been denied LQ elk tags.

3. Each year since the Wyoming Chapter formed, we have donated $500-$1000 annually to Wyoming's AccessYes program. Each dollar opens up 3+ acres of access to hunters and fishermen across the State. The BHA board also has one member that is in the top 10 private donors to AccessYes most years. Our board just last night voted to donate another $1,000 in the next week or two.

Wyoming BHA Donates to AccessYes! - DEV - Backcountry Hunters and Anglers

4. Stopped the Bonander State Land exchange that would have taken several thousand acres of prime elk hunting in Wyomings Unit 7 from the public. Our all volunteer board lead a petition, attended meetings, and personally talked with the top 5 elected officials in the State to stop this exchange.

State board denies controversial land swap | Open Spaces | trib.com

5. Supported a recent stand land exchange, the bull creek #2 exchange, that resulted in a gain in State Access and blocked up state land holdings. It also has a net gain in state school trust revenue. So, win-win on that one.

State board gives thumbs-up to Bull Creek No. 2 swap - Buffalo Bulletin: Home

6. Helped keep access to a popular HMA in central Wyoming where a private landowner suffered some vandalism. WYBHA co-chair Jeff Muratore was one of the first hunters to contribute money to a fund set up to compensate the landowners. Even though it wasn't hunters or anglers that did the vandalism, we thought it would be important to show the landowners that we value the use of their property. When Jeff brought this to the board, we contributed $500 to the GF reward fund used to solve cases like this.

Cabin in Muddy Mountain Hunter Management Area vandalized, authorities ask for information | Cops & Courts | trib.com

7. Our all volunteer board attends hundreds of hours of commission, GF, land board, BLM, FS, State lands meeting across the state. We do this for ZERO compensation, not even compensated for fuel. Our board is dedicated and we would rather see chapter funds spent on projects and funding accessyes, etc. We attend the legislative session, interim committee hearings, and talk with the legislature and our elected officials all the time.

8. We also do the "feel good" projects that some seem to not like. We've built buck and rail fencing to keep illegal off-road damage down, provided labor and helped fund a FS/GF/State sign project on the Medicine Bow NF. We do clean up days at popular public land shooting ranges each year. The University of Wyoming BHA Chapter Club just spent a couple days in April building duck blinds for disabled hunters at a local wildlife refuge near Laramie.

I read about the desire to reverse the wilderness guide law here...its a terrible law and one that needs to be changed no doubt. Anyone that's been involved with issues like this will realize it will take more than a simple "nudge" to get that State Statute repealed. It would require a huge lift and with the political climate of Wyoming...I don't think its possible.

Like I said, I doubt this reply will change minds, but that's what we've been up to since the chapter formed in 2015.

 

[dwils233]

I've been lurking on here for a while and I'm a BHA member and try to stay involved at the state level as much as I can.

It seems that other people can speak to the work going in in their states pretty well. I don't feel much need to add to that because some people seem happy with it, and others don't necessarily think it adds up to much. To each their own I suppose, and I don't think listing those accomplishments will do much to sway people who don't think much of BHA.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned that BHA does is the college clubs and supporting programs that have just gotten started in the year or so. If everyone is paying attention, you know know hunter recruitment levels are low and we are losing existing hunters quickly. The college program helps get people into hunting who may only have little experience, or no experience at all with the outdoors. We need that kind of work being done, its one thing to get a kid out hunting with his dad but we truly need to open our arms to these young adults who want to be in the field and want to be active and ethical hunters. It even came up in a convesration with a national board member at the rendevous about expanding that program onto military bases. I support them for lots of reasons, but this one deserves to be something we mention when people ask "but what does BHA DO??"

Chasing the hunter: University of Montana students bring friends to big game tradition | Local | missoulian.com

I'd say hunter recruitment is harder and more important that "shooter" recruitment that happens we take people to the gun range

 

[JMF]

Joe Hunter goes to a cocktail party; nothing fancy, just a holiday gathering in Anytown, USA. A conversation begins with Bob Peta, it goes something like this:

Bob Peta: Say Joe, didn’t you go deer hunting this year?
Joe Hunter: Sure did Bob.
Bob: Man, that’s great, did you get one?
Joe: Yep, I sure did, a nice six pointer.
Bob: Hey, that’s great. Say listen Joe, you’re a true hunter, a “real” hunter are you not?
Joe: I sure am.
Bob: Say, I hear tell of a kind of hunting where people can go kill animals in fenced areas. You’ve never done that, have you?
Joe: No, no I haven’t.
Bob: Well, I wouldn’t call that real hunting, would you Joe?
Joe: Well, that’s not the way I hunt.
Bob: I know Joe, but there are people who hunt in fenced areas. I don’t think that’s really hunting, do you Joe?
Joe: well, uh, I guess not.
Bob: Great. Say, listen Joe, a group of us concerned “real” hunters are trying to get that method of hunting done away with. We feel it is unethical, will you help us?
Joe: Sure, because that is not the way I hunt, and I’m a real hunter.
Bob: Thanks Joe. Here is what we need you to do. As a real hunter the big boys in Congress and the Senate will listen to you. They know that any “real” hunter only hunts the way you do, and that’s the only real hunting there is. What we need you to do is get out there and get petitions signed, people will sign them because you are a real hunter, and they know that only your way of hunting is the “real” way.

So Joe diligently goes after the goal, to ban, and outlaw any kind of hunting that Bob suggest is not real hunting. He gathers up signatures, petitions courts, and makes meetings. He is really cleaning up this unethical way of hunting, he’s got a lot of support. He is gathering “real” hunters from all over, and finally, after much hard work, they get a legal way of hunting banned.

Bob: Joe, you did great and we sure appreciate your hard work, but let me tell you what I heard. There is another type of hunting that we think is not right. Could you help us again?
Joe: Well I guess so Bob. I don’t hunt like that, so it’s not real hunting anyway. How can I help?

It’s the same old story. It’s odd how Bob Peta keeps adding to the list of what “real” hunting is. However, Joe goes at it hard and heavy, and in the end, he helps get that type of hunting banned. Bob and his friends are happy. Joe is a “real” hunter, and these other guy’s aren’t, because the way they hunt is different from Joe, and Joe does not like that way of hunting. So what’s the harm in getting rid of that type of hunting. Joe is a “real” hunter after all, not like those other guys. He even goes to sportsmen’s organizations and recruits from within. It’s easy because they are all “real” hunters too.

Time passes, and more and more legal ways of hunting are banned. Bob and his friends are real happy with Joe, he’s been a real help. So after all the unethical ways of hunting are gone, Bob and his friends decide that it is time to get Joe’s way of hunting banned, the final chapter.

Joe: Bob, hey buddy, this is Joe. I know I helped you get rid of all those other forms of legal hunting, but now there is a move to get rid of the way I hunt.
Bob: Well Joe, I know. My friends and I are spearheading that movement.
Joe: But Bob, I thought you liked the way I hunt, and it was OK for me to do that type of hunting?
Bob: Well Joe, no, any and all types of hunting are bad, the poor defenseless animals never have a chance, and we dislike, actually we hate hunters.
Joe: But I thought the way I hunted was “real” hunting to you?
Bob: Joe, it was all real hunting, but we at PETA and HSUS hate you. Thanks for all your help, we greatly appreciate it.

You see, what Joe became was a “Cannibal”, a “Useful Idiot” to the anti-hunters at HSUS and PETA . They don’t give a rat’s backside how you hunt, what you hunt, or where you hunt, they just want all hunting done away with. The sad thing is that they use hunters against hunters for their causes. If you do not support any and all forms of legal hunting, or voice any decent about the way someone else legally hunts, you my friend are a “Cannibal”, and a very “Useful Idiot” to the enemy. Think twice the next time you mouth off against another hunter’s methods, they could be coming after you next.

Written by: John Wasmuth

I should add I don't agree with calling high fence hunting, hunting but you could replace that with hunting bears over bait, trapping, hunting wolves/grizzlys, or anything else the "elitists" don't agree with.

 

[orionthehunter1]

The difference from my 10,000' view is that other groups I belong to like NRA, nwtf, rmef, du, etc.... throws down money where their mouth is. I just never saw that the years I was a bha member. Meanwhile they boasted doubling membership each year, merch sales were up, etc...

I'd see the website and publication where they came out against this or that... but never ever did I really see them doing anything of substance. Sure cleanup days are cute and good for cohesion but unlike the nra they never had lawyers in the trenches fighting for things like the wy wilderness law. T-shirts and microbrew nights were more important.

That's not a slight. If that's going to be their focus then fine. I'd just prefer to take business to someone waving less flags and acting more with what their given

That's because close to 80% of their budget goes to salaries and "other expenses"

 

[mtwarden]

quite a lot of effort pontificating on how BHA doesn’t truly represent them as hunters; would it be worthwhile putting forth the same effort and start an organization that does? post your new organization information here

clearly room for another organization

 

[TheTone]

I can be an idiot. Many times I do things for reaction. People will give you their intent when emotional. What I also do us give what I get. It’s fair.

Nice to see you admit to largely being an internet troll

 

[vanish]

Yep, both are lobby organizations.

Wrong.

NRA-ILA is a lobbying organization.

BHA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit.

In general, no organization may qualify for section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying). A 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status.

 

[3forks]

quite a lot of effort pontificating on how BHA doesn’t truly represent them as hunters; would it be worthwhile putting forth the same effort and start an organization that does? post your new organization information here

clearly room for another organization

That's how I see this, too.

I see the same posters continually chiming in on threads like this (on this forum as well as others).

If the same amount of effort was spent on something actually constructive - no matter what side of the fence you're on - you would at least have something to show for it rather than trying to win a debate in this forum.

 

[vanish]

I think our message should be unified vs anti hunters and I don't believe we need to apologize for any legal form of hunting, if we do it will be death by 1000 cuts.

I'm sorry, but I don't see the world this way. There is no "hunter vs anti-hunter". There is a whole spectrum of opinions on what is ethical and what should or should not be legal. Legal hunting as it currently stands may be too restrictive for some, but not others. For example, I think one should be able to use a spear ( less restrictive ), but that person should have to pass a competency test to do it ( more restrictive ). Not all hunters will agree with me, and I expect and respect that.

The whole idea of "death by 1000 cuts" is anti-democratic to me. You must have compromise in order to survive as a society.

 

[Billinsd]

Joe Hunter goes to a cocktail party; nothing fancy, just a holiday gathering in Anytown, USA. A conversation begins with Bob Peta, it goes something like this:

Bob Peta: Say Joe, didn’t you go deer hunting this year?
Joe Hunter: Sure did Bob.
Bob: Man, that’s great, did you get one?
Joe: Yep, I sure did, a nice six pointer.
Bob: Hey, that’s great. Say listen Joe, you’re a true hunter, a “real” hunter are you not?
Joe: I sure am.
Bob: Say, I hear tell of a kind of hunting where people can go kill animals in fenced areas. You’ve never done that, have you?
Joe: No, no I haven’t.
Bob: Well, I wouldn’t call that real hunting, would you Joe?
Joe: Well, that’s not the way I hunt.
Bob: I know Joe, but there are people who hunt in fenced areas. I don’t think that’s really hunting, do you Joe?
Joe: well, uh, I guess not.
Bob: Great. Say, listen Joe, a group of us concerned “real” hunters are trying to get that method of hunting done away with. We feel it is unethical, will you help us?
Joe: Sure, because that is not the way I hunt, and I’m a real hunter.
Bob: Thanks Joe. Here is what we need you to do. As a real hunter the big boys in Congress and the Senate will listen to you. They know that any “real” hunter only hunts the way you do, and that’s the only real hunting there is. What we need you to do is get out there and get petitions signed, people will sign them because you are a real hunter, and they know that only your way of hunting is the “real” way.

So Joe diligently goes after the goal, to ban, and outlaw any kind of hunting that Bob suggest is not real hunting. He gathers up signatures, petitions courts, and makes meetings. He is really cleaning up this unethical way of hunting, he’s got a lot of support. He is gathering “real” hunters from all over, and finally, after much hard work, they get a legal way of hunting banned.

Bob: Joe, you did great and we sure appreciate your hard work, but let me tell you what I heard. There is another type of hunting that we think is not right. Could you help us again?
Joe: Well I guess so Bob. I don’t hunt like that, so it’s not real hunting anyway. How can I help?

It’s the same old story. It’s odd how Bob Peta keeps adding to the list of what “real” hunting is. However, Joe goes at it hard and heavy, and in the end, he helps get that type of hunting banned. Bob and his friends are happy. Joe is a “real” hunter, and these other guy’s aren’t, because the way they hunt is different from Joe, and Joe does not like that way of hunting. So what’s the harm in getting rid of that type of hunting. Joe is a “real” hunter after all, not like those other guys. He even goes to sportsmen’s organizations and recruits from within. It’s easy because they are all “real” hunters too.

Time passes, and more and more legal ways of hunting are banned. Bob and his friends are real happy with Joe, he’s been a real help. So after all the unethical ways of hunting are gone, Bob and his friends decide that it is time to get Joe’s way of hunting banned, the final chapter.

Joe: Bob, hey buddy, this is Joe. I know I helped you get rid of all those other forms of legal hunting, but now there is a move to get rid of the way I hunt.
Bob: Well Joe, I know. My friends and I are spearheading that movement.
Joe: But Bob, I thought you liked the way I hunt, and it was OK for me to do that type of hunting?
Bob: Well Joe, no, any and all types of hunting are bad, the poor defenseless animals never have a chance, and we dislike, actually we hate hunters.
Joe: But I thought the way I hunted was “real” hunting to you?
Bob: Joe, it was all real hunting, but we at PETA and HSUS hate you. Thanks for all your help, we greatly appreciate it.

You see, what Joe became was a “Cannibal”, a “Useful Idiot” to the anti-hunters at HSUS and PETA . They don’t give a rat’s backside how you hunt, what you hunt, or where you hunt, they just want all hunting done away with. The sad thing is that they use hunters against hunters for their causes. If you do not support any and all forms of legal hunting, or voice any decent about the way someone else legally hunts, you my friend are a “Cannibal”, and a very “Useful Idiot” to the enemy. Think twice the next time you mouth off against another hunter’s methods, they could be coming after you next.

Written by: John Wasmuth

I should add I don't agree with calling high fence hunting, hunting but you could replace that with hunting bears over bait, trapping, hunting wolves/grizzlys, or anything else the "elitists" don't agree with.

I don't exactly how, but I'm SURE I'm not a REAL hunter!