Join the BHA?

[vanish]

question..: BHA would have to disclose if they donate to political campaigns or any other groups correct?

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.

 

[Billinsd]

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.

Thanks, always good to know when I'm wrong!!

 

[vanish]

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

Which should be expected. BHA employs people to get the public land owner voice heard. This gives those people the time to be active in things like advisory committees, roundtables, commissions, etc.

Those "other expenses" can be things like WY Access Yes program, as BuzzH showed above, which is a direct money>access funnel.

BHA does not go out of its way to buy land and donate it, because the idea of governments owning more land is not palatable to some people.

 

[CorbLand]

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 feel like thats a bit extreme.

 

[CorbLand]

BHA does not go out of its way to buy land and donate it, because the idea of governments owning more land is not palatable to some people.

That, and there are a couple organizations that already do that. How many organizations do we need doing the same thing?

 

[Billinsd]

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.

United we stand divided we fall. Decades ago when I was a teenager, I was convinced that hunting bears or deer over bait was "bad" and people who did that weren't really hunters. I also believed no one "need" an AR and definitely no one needs an AR for hunting. I remember getting angy at the NRA for wanting to keep cop killer bullets legal, then learned the antis lumped other perfectly fine bullets with ones that could penetrate bullet proof vests. I was young and misguided. I became more educated and wiser as I've aged, mostly, lol.

 

[vanish]

United we stand divided we fall.

In order to be United, we must ALL work together to come up with acceptable compromises. United means everyone, not just everyone who shares your personal beliefs. I think you'd be hard pressed to find more than a handful of people who agree with you on everything.

 

[Billinsd]

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 a non sequitur, straw man argument. There is some pontificating on both sides and good discussions on both sides. It's not much effort at all for me to debate a little. Starting another organization would be like a part time job or more, lol!! Don't give up so easy on the debate.

 

[backcountry_hunter]

Which should be expected. BHA employs people to get the public land owner voice heard. This gives those people the time to be active in things like advisory committees, roundtables, commissions, etc.

Those "other expenses" can be things like WY Access Yes program, as BuzzH showed above, which is a direct money>access funnel.

BHA does not go out of its way to buy land and donate it, because the idea of governments owning more land is not palatable to some people.

You're right in the sense that other orgs like nwtf, rmef, du are more into the habitat restoration side and it's expected that they buy or co-buy land to manage for their respective game. I guess my frustration with BHA is not that they aren't buying land and making it public... but more that at some point the rubber will have to meet the road and they're going to need to start showing results. Somewhere along the way it would behoove them to not hire a 100th chapter coordinator job and look to put lawyers and legal experts on their payroll. If they're really serious about public access and making public lands public there's places like wyoming where large parts of the public land there are off access to non-res and instead of meeting it head on our board members are saying "we don't stand a chance". Those battles won't be won at pint nights or rendezvous, that's courtroom and capital fights where they'll need experts in those fields. That to me is why BHA is more of a social club than a public land advocacy group. Here's low hanging fruit that would take a tremendous amount of work, time and money and even then is an uphill battle but then again.... aren't they fighting for our right to public land? Afterall their bankroll should theoretically be increasing if they've indeed doubled membership every year since inception.... Or do they just have a feel good image about public land but when an actual disparity like this exits they give up and say we can't fight the outfitters association and politics in WY?

I'm not trying to be confrontational, just voicing frustration with this group that I originally perceived to be taking on stuff like this. I'd love to support an organization truly fighting issues like the wyoming wilderness law but after a while it became clear that's not a priority to them... I just use that example because someone else brought it up....

 

[Huntindog45]

exactly what i expect

Which should be expected. BHA employs people to get the public land owner voice heard. This gives those people the time to be active in things like advisory committees, roundtables, commissions, etc.

Those "other expenses" can be things like WY Access Yes program, as BuzzH showed above, which is a direct money>access funnel.

BHA does not go out of its way to buy land and donate it, because the idea of governments owning more land is not palatable to some people.

A large portion of funds going toward salary is exactly what I expect from BHA. We pay BHA in the form of donations and membership to represent us as a group. That takes professionals acting on our behalf. This is not a habitat group. They are not buying land or doing habitat projects. They are fighting a fight in Washington and other capital cities on our behalf. That takes paid staff. I will gladly keep paying toward that effort. I am not sure what else you would want the money to go toward?

 

[BuzzH]

You're right in the sense that other orgs like nwtf, rmef, du are more into the habitat restoration side and it's expected that they buy or co-buy land to manage for their respective game. I guess my frustration with BHA is not that they aren't buying land and making it public... but more that at some point the rubber will have to meet the road and they're going to need to start showing results. Somewhere along the way it would behoove them to not hire a 100th chapter coordinator job and look to put lawyers and legal experts on their payroll. If they're really serious about public access and making public lands public there's places like wyoming where large parts of the public land there are off access to non-res and instead of meeting it head on our board members are saying "we don't stand a chance". Those battles won't be won at pint nights or rendezvous, that's courtroom and capital fights where they'll need experts in those fields. That to me is why BHA is more of a social club than a public land advocacy group. Here's low hanging fruit that would take a tremendous amount of work, time and money and even then is an uphill battle but then again.... aren't they fighting for our right to public land? Afterall their bankroll should theoretically be increasing if they've indeed doubled membership every year since inception.... Or do they just have a feel good image about public land but when an actual disparity like this exits they give up and say we can't fight the outfitters association and politics in WY?

I'm not trying to be confrontational, just voicing frustration with this group that I originally perceived to be taking on stuff like this. I'd love to support an organization truly fighting issues like the wyoming wilderness law but after a while it became clear that's not a priority to them... I just use that example because someone else brought it up....

I think you need to do some research on the Wilderness Guide Law...its not a matter of a court case and throwing money down the chitter on attorneys to refight a battle they/we cant win.

This guy was an attorney that tried to fight the legal battle...guess what? Yeah, no success and was thrown out of court.

State seeks to dismiss hunter's lawsuit | Wyoming News | trib.com

Further, since that case was hurled out of court, there was this bill titled: s.339 bill that passed.

Here it is:

"The bill creates an exemption to the dormant Commerce Clause in order to give each state the right to regulate access to hunting and fishing. This is done by a renunciation of federal interest in regulating hunting and fishing. The reasons for creating this exception include the following:

Allowing states to distinguish and/or discriminate between residents and non-residents ensures the protection of state wildlife and protects resident hunting and fishing opportunities.

Protecting the public interest of individual states’ conservation efforts. Sportsmen and local organizations are extremely active in the conservation of fish and game. They support wildlife conservation through taxes, fees, and locally led non-profit conservation efforts.

Respecting the traditional authority of individual states. The regulation of wildlife has traditionally been within a state’s purview. It is in the best interest of the state and federal governments to ensure that states retain the authority to regulate wildlife."

So, you can stay as frustrated as you want, hire all the attorneys you want, spend all the money you want, and you'll be pi$$ing up a rope trying to battle the Wyoming Wilderness Guide law in that venue.

The ONLY way to get that law changed is by a repeal of the State Statute...period, end of story. What that will take is a grass-roots effort from RESIDENT sportsmen to lobby the State Legislature to repeal it.

The reason that's going to be the heaviest of heavy lifts:

1. The current R dominated legislature is very friendly with any industry that makes money from the state wildlife assets. Meaning, they like the idea of forcing NR hunters to hire outfitters to hunt our wildlife.

2. A good portion of Resident hunters (not me and many people I know) like the idea of having areas that aren't swarmed with NR hunters.

3. Talk is cheap, people whine and cry about the Wyoming Wilderness Guide Law, but never seem to want to shell out or help with the lift required to change it.

Many people want something for nothing...isn't how it works. They're like a blister...show up after the work is done.

I'm not saying that the Wilderness Guide law cant change, but what you're suggesting simply wont work. You'll lose your ass, and lose it big in a court room. Be out a ton of money and the only winners will be attorneys.

Not how I'm willing to fight this one...at all.

However, I do agree 100% with you, that with the exception of the guide requirements in Alaska on sheep, goat, and grizzly bears, this is the most discriminatory hunting regulation of any State. There is also the fact that there is a legal way around it by having a Resident friend obtain the free Resident Guide license for you.

 

[Copen1822]

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.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree!
You may not see it as "hunter vs anti" but that's absolutely how they see it. I can't think of a way compromising with anti hunters can be a good thing.

I understand the need for compromise in some instances but I'm solidly grounded in my core beliefs and probably see issues as more black and white because of it.

There can be lots of opinions but in the end there is right and there is wrong, regardless of the different opinions.


Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[sveltri]

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

If this is true, admittedly I did nothing to verify, then it really boils down to small groups of citizens having the time to attend meetings that are really getting things done. If BHA was using their funds to help acquire or maintain access (for ALL) I would jump in head first. I believe the RMEF actually puts their dollars to use to improve habitat. I'm kinda surprised no higher up from BHA has chimed in on this. You can bet if this was a back pack thread we would have heard from a companies rep.

 

[sveltri]

You're right in the sense that other orgs like nwtf, rmef, du are more into the habitat restoration side and it's expected that they buy or co-buy land to manage for their respective game. I guess my frustration with BHA is not that they aren't buying land and making it public... but more that at some point the rubber will have to meet the road and they're going to need to start showing results. Somewhere along the way it would behoove them to not hire a 100th chapter coordinator job and look to put lawyers and legal experts on their payroll. If they're really serious about public access and making public lands public there's places like wyoming where large parts of the public land there are off access to non-res and instead of meeting it head on our board members are saying "we don't stand a chance". Those battles won't be won at pint nights or rendezvous, that's courtroom and capital fights where they'll need experts in those fields. That to me is why BHA is more of a social club than a public land advocacy group. Here's low hanging fruit that would take a tremendous amount of work, time and money and even then is an uphill battle but then again.... aren't they fighting for our right to public land? Afterall their bankroll should theoretically be increasing if they've indeed doubled membership every year since inception.... Or do they just have a feel good image about public land but when an actual disparity like this exits they give up and say we can't fight the outfitters association and politics in WY?

I'm not trying to be confrontational, just voicing frustration with this group that I originally perceived to be taking on stuff like this. I'd love to support an organization truly fighting issues like the wyoming wilderness law but after a while it became clear that's not a priority to them... I just use that example because someone else brought it up....

My feelings exactly, stated much more clearly.

 

[vanish]

I'm getting far off topic here, and I apologize for that.

You may not see it as "hunter vs anti" but that's absolutely how they see it. I can't think of a way compromising with anti hunters can be a good thing.

Let's analyze this statement, going from the most to the least extreme.

There are people who are against the death of anything.
There are people who are against the death of non-farmed animals.
There are people who are against "trophy" hunting, where the definition of trophy hunting is highly variable.
There are people who have no opinion either way.
There are people who are against "meat" hunting, where people are indiscriminate of the age/size of the animal.
There are people who are against "unethical" hunting, where the definition of what is unethical is highly variable. (See: shooting grouse on the ground, turkey on the wing, ducks on a pond, baiting)
There are people who are against being required to make use of the animals they kill.
There are people who think they should be able to kill anything anytime anywhere.

Where do you draw the line? Who is the "them", who is the "us"? Most people lie somewhere in the middle. Just like most subjects. Is a person who supports "meat" hunting but not "trophy" hunting, regardless of your opinion on whether this is logical, considered them, or considered us?

We've already compromised with so called "anti-hunters" with laws that limit the extent of what we can hunt, when, where and with what technology. But laws are not written in stone. They change all the time. Sometimes they move more restrictive, sometimes not.

 

[CorbLand]

I think the number one problem that people are having with BHA is that we are so use to RMEF, MDF, PF, DU and all of the organizations that use funds to improve habitat, buy land, increase hunters, etc. BHA isnt doing those things, instead they have chosen to take the fight to Washington and get laws and regulations changed and protect what we currently have. We need both if we want to make a difference. You dont win a baseball game playing football. You have to fight where the fight is being fought and its being fought in the courtrooms now.

 

[Trial153]

I have come to the conclusion that this thread is a big waste of time. Whenever the OP starts with I would be a member but but but ...xyz, they aren’t looking for anything but self validation of their already formed opinion.

 

[sneaky]

This sentiment is ludicrous.

It's basic math, based on the trends and accepted data from every single state that hunter numbers are falling. Hunter numbers correspond directly -- BY LAW -- to dollars on the ground by virtue of license sales, Pitman-Robertson, and general state funds. Thus, left unchecked and unmitigated, the dollars state's can spend on managing wildlife also drops at a corresponding rate.

Relationships with non-hunters are not only encouraged, but essential to offset that trend. Nonhunter numbers are growing far faster than hunters and those numbers could -- and should -- contribute to the funds to manage state wildlife. If every person wearing Patagonia contributed through the existing channels to wildlife funds, states wouldn't have to come up with new ways to generate funds, but could actually focus on management.

Relationships with non-hunters (like the one BHA and Patagonia displayed in Idaho) also removes hostility in the hunting narrative. Demonstrations like the one at the Rendezvous show that hunters are interested in solving the bigger problems by forming new partnerships and engaging in an intelligent conversation about WHY HUNTING MATTERS. Nonhunters are not antihunters.....yet. So any step to engage a rock climber, fly fisherman, or alpinist about why hunting is good, is a step I will take every time.

I hope everyone on Rokslide would do the same.

The outdoor recreation community has had the opportunity several times to enact a self imposed tax like PR to help with funding for public lands etc. They've shot it down every single time. Tell me, how can you partner with a group that doesn't want to pay their share? They certainly wouldn't want any of their money to go towards anything related to hunting.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[WV Mountaineer]

Nice to see you admit to largely being an internet troll

Boy, you sure got me there

 

[Matt Cashell]

Whenever the OP starts with I would be a member but but but ...xyz, they aren’t looking for anything but self validation of their already formed opinion.

I think this is often true with these types of threads. There is always a chance they will change their already formed opinion though. Sadly, facts aren't always enough, however.

I have come to the conclusion that this thread is a big waste of time.

I don't know. This thread has over 4,000 reads at the time of this posting. That is a lot of people reading that aren't posting. Lots of good work that BHA does has been linked and/or explained. Plenty of readers will be able to sift through the thread and make up their own minds about BHA.

BHA is an advocacy group. That means they do a lot of person-to-person communication on public lands and conservation issues with decision makers and stakeholders. It is no surprise that is where the bulk of the money (and volunteer hours!) goes, and it is well used in that way. It is hard to quantify just how important it is to have a person standing right there when elected officials and the Secretary of Interior are standing with their feet on the ground at a proposed public access site, making the decision on its future.

BHA's financials show they are still a pretty small group. I find it amazing that just how much contact and influence they have already, and it is growing steady. Just about every news story and podcast about public lands access gets a BHA mention. Elected officials from local commissions to the US Senate know the name.

Maybe some day they will be big enough and have the funds to purchase lands themselves. I hope so. In the mean time advocating for, and pushing through, projects like the Horse Creek Easement and Blackfoot-Clearwater Stewardship have the same effect, and are just as valuable.

I hope every reader continues to research exactly what things BHA is involved in advocating for, and join in the movement in what way they can.