Are you a Backcountry Hunters and Anglers member?

[Jason Snyder]

No. I know that I am uneducated for sure. I just want to hunt, fish, hike, drive and camp on the mountains around me; and I want that for my sons. But the more I read what BHA posts on facebook and see on here I feel like my hopes for public lands don't align all that well. There is a place for wilderness areas and monuments but I feel like those things (sometimes) are enemies to what I want my public lands to be. The ATV example was a good one I think. I want my kids to hunt with my dad. He cant hike miles into a wilderness area. I live on an over 1.8 million acre monument, that I pray never becomes a national park. But another example is that access on the monument declines all the time. From what I have seen ranchers are the ones who maintain most of the very best access roads to hunting. Much more so than the BLM. The monument is slowly choking out ranchers. When they talk about looking at reducing the size of it, we want to celebrate around here, local hunters and ranchers. Then I see BHA pushing propaganda to prevent that from happening... I just keep feeling like BHA is far more aligned with a liberal agenda than I want to be.

I would suggest you call Land Tawney directly. I think your perception of their stance on things is a little off.

 

[Flatgo]

No, I was tempted until they came out with the quiet water initiative in Montana. I believe they do some really good stuff but always have a feeling that they want to keep it public but only want public land used how they like it. Personally I like to see dirt bikers, hikers hunters, and anyone else using public lands makes it a lot easier to keep public with a bigger voting base using it. We need areas for all recreationists to use. Yet I don't think bha does just because of things like the quiet water initiative. But no organization is perfect

 

[twall13]

No, I was tempted until they came out with the quiet water initiative in Montana. I believe they do some really good stuff but always have a feeling that they want to keep it public but only want public land used how they like it. Personally I like to see dirt bikers, hikers hunters, and anyone else using public lands makes it a lot easier to keep public with a bigger voting base using it. We need areas for all recreationists to use. Yet I don't think bha does just because of things like the quiet water initiative. But no organization is perfect

Land Tawney has stated multiple times on podcasts that BHA is for multiple use of public lands. There is a place for everyone, including ATV's, MTN. Bikes, etc. The difference is that not every place should have access by all means. Wilderness areas have their place and BHA does alot to protect them. Keep in mind, however, that wilderness areas are a very small percentage of our public lands as a whole. I think sometimes the perception is that BHA is only for wilderness areas but I think that's just because they do more than anyone else to protect those areas. They are for all public lands and definitly support a multiple use policy.

And yes I'm a member and also an ATV owner.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

[cg2737]

Yes, they are a great voice for public lands. I did the three year membership but hope to upgrade to a lifetime membership at the end of my three year membership.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[chuckeglenn]

Without a doubt I'm a member. If you don't think they are for multiple use, you are misinformed.

 

[SquidHC]

i had never even heard of them. just took a look. seems legit. will look some more. Thanks for giving them the plug

Awesome! That was (secretly) part of the reason I posted this. Some people scoff at them because they are willing to try and find common ground with liberal organizations, but they are fighting a good fight for us.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

 

[SquidHC]

SquidHC,

I'm a RMEF member since the 90's. Have considered joining this organization, as access IS important to me.

What gives me pause:
I have issues with the BCHA stance on UTV/ATV's. I'm 61 years old and own a ATV that I feel I use in a responsible manor. I'm uncomfortable as a NR hunter, with promoting more NF land be dedicated as wilderness areas when that means the DIY option might be closed to me. Have made my living for 38 years in the Oil & Gas industry. Many conservations organizations including BCHA have issues with multiple land use, and I don't always agree with their views. I have some strong opinions on the man made global warming debate. I don't think that embracing leftist climate change doctrine is in the best interest of outdoorsmen, hunters, or the country in general. I have read members comments and often find them ripe with misconceptions and off-putting distortions about these topics. It sucks because I share a passion for hunting, and have more in common with the membership than most.

Everyone has opinions on this stuff based on personal experiences and their political views. Would feel hypocritical to a great extent to endorse and give money to an organization who's policies I don't often agree with. For this reason, I have held off on joining most any organizations. I do have guilt. I know the NRA is fighting to maintain my gun rights. I don't belong to them either.

LaGriz

Thanks for your thoughtful response.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

 

[NDGuy]

The seek outside packages are sweet!

All of the lifetime packages seem good! Might have to look at it next year.

 

[Jason Snyder]

Awesome! That was (secretly) part of the reason I posted this. Some people scoff at them because they are willing to try and find common ground with liberal organizations, but they are fighting a good fight for us.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

If there was a photo of Land Tawney wearing a Stormy Kromer hat, chewing Copenhagen, holding a Bud Light, and standing next to a ATV with a dead buck strapped on it the perception of BHA would be markedly different.

 

[Huntindog45]

crap just spent 20 minutes reading. they seem to share my point of view on most everything. signing up.

 

[Jason Snyder]

No, I was tempted until they came out with the quiet water initiative in Montana. I believe they do some really good stuff but always have a feeling that they want to keep it public but only want public land used how they like it. Personally I like to see dirt bikers, hikers hunters, and anyone else using public lands makes it a lot easier to keep public with a bigger voting base using it. We need areas for all recreationists to use. Yet I don't think bha does just because of things like the quiet water initiative. But no organization is perfect

This is a really good point I would like to speak to. First, if I come across as a BHA homer, my apologies. I am, and I'm also a TRCP homer. I love seeing groups reach out on a large scale because, quite honestly, the small scale niches like winter range protection and habitat improvements are already filled. We don't need more groups trying to fund guzzlers or build wildlife friendly fence.

That said, the Quiet Waters Initiative is a good example of how collaborative efforts are born. I am not fully in tune with the initiative, and won't pretend to be. There are people I have a good deal of respect for who stand on opposite sides of this issue. There are two approaches one can take here. First, you can attempt to prove the other guy as "wrong" and attempt to discredit their efforts, or two, you can attempt to find out what is their motivation/purpose/drive, and is their room for compromise? If you take the first option, then compromise is surely dead in the water. If you take the second, then you can work towards productive solutions like the Boulder Clouds Wilderness Area, where a broad spectrum of groups worked together. Does everyone get exactly what they want? Heck no, and in today's world you shouldn't really expect to unless it deals with constitutional protections.

I expect the Quiet Waters Initiative could be hashed out extensively at local levels and a workable compromise reached, if the parties involved are willing to share the sandbox.

Remember, shallow minds and shallow waters freeze first.

 

[Flatgo]

I believe there are streams that should be protected by the quiet water initiative I think the big problem with it is it limit jet boating on 2 major rivers the flathead and Missouri that had been used for years. Just but a bad taste in my mouth that bha is against certain types of recreation. But again I believe 90% of what they do is good.

 

[CoHiCntry]

If there was a photo of Land Tawney wearing a Stormy Kromer hat, chewing Copenhagen, holding a Bud Light, and standing next to a ATV with a dead buck strapped on it the perception of BHA would be markedly different.

Change that Bud Light can to a Coors yellow can and I'd join right now! Sounds like my kind of guy!

 

[mntnguide]

Yes, great organization who actually gives a damn about our public lands and not their pockets

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[NDGuy]

Hmmm wonder if I do the 1500 or 2500 Kimber package...10 payments without interest sounds kinda nice for a new gun and contributing to a good cause!

 

[Mtnboy]

Hmmm wonder if I do the 1500 or 2500 Kimber package...10 payments without interest sounds kinda nice for a new gun and contributing to a good cause!

I like the way you think, go $2,500...

Good discussion here on both sides, nice to see!

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[KJH]

Yes, I want public land to stay public and open for usage by sportsmen.

 

[Ben Nicholson]

I'm a member, and an atv owner.

 

[brewer427]

That said, the Quiet Waters Initiative is a good example of how collaborative efforts are born. I am not fully in tune with the initiative, and won't pretend to be. There are people I have a good deal of respect for who stand on opposite sides of this issue. There are two approaches one can take here. First, you can attempt to prove the other guy as "wrong" and attempt to discredit their efforts, or two, you can attempt to find out what is their motivation/purpose/drive, and is their room for compromise? If you take the first option, then compromise is surely dead in the water. If you take the second, then you can work towards productive solutions like the Boulder Clouds Wilderness Area, where a broad spectrum of groups worked together. Does everyone get exactly what they want? Heck no, and in today's world you shouldn't really expect to unless it deals with constitutional protections.

I expect the Quiet Waters Initiative could be hashed out extensively at local levels and a workable compromise reached, if the parties involved are willing to share the sandbox.

Remember, shallow minds and shallow waters freeze first.

I was thinking about joining BHA before the Quite Waters came up, but now I'm on the fence with them. Full disclosure I own a Wooldridge jetboat and take it on the Yellowstone and Missouri all the time, I also own a drift boat that I use on many of the rivers in Montana. Now my problem with the Quite Waters is that the MT FWP wardens do not support it at all and said there is no basis for it because Jet craft and non motorized conflicts are a non issue, but still this proposal got pushed forward by the FWP commission. It could be argued that two of the Gentleman on that commission had a conflict of interest with ties to real estate and outfitting on the Yellowstone river and should not have been allowed to vote. But my understanding is they are no longer on the committee and new members will be take there place.

My biggest issues with Quite waters is it is limiting certain areas from Jet boats do to possible FUTURE ISSUES, not present ones. Two of the rivers in question are the Stillwater and the boulder by Big Timber. Now if you have fished those rivers you would no that nobody in there right mind is going to run a boat up them. They have two many rocks/boulders and are not big enough. I contacted FWP after I went to the public meetings in Kalispell and Helena and asked them if they have ever heard of anybody running a Jet boat up either of those rivers. After several weeks I was told that nobody has ever had any complaints or heard of someone running a Jetboat up them.

To me I am curious why this proposal went ahead with no support from the FWP wardens and no basis for it to go ahead other the "there might be a problem with jet boats in the future". To me lets wait and see if it ever gets to that point where a proposal like this is warranted, then IF that ever happens, move forward accordingly. And Jason to your point about working it out locally. There has been no proposal by BHA to work with people who have Jet boats for a compromise. At the two public hearings I went to in Kalispell and Helena, there was really no presence of BHA to field questions and stand up for there proposal. Those meetings were overwhelmingly filled with people very much against the proposal...

 

[Jason Snyder]

Brewer,

Very fair assessment and some questions I think you should ask BHA.

For the record, I love jet boats.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk