BHA rendezvous !

[Billy Goat]

C+

I'm sorry, I must have overlooked yours.

 

[alecvg]

That's a great name for the org, mate - just name it that. Maybe I should start a change.org petition for them to do that. This is what I and a lot of people think - stop hiding a public lands org that gives money to use organizations (like bikers and hikers) behind hunters and anglers when the same org seems to be actively indifferent to hunters holistically. If tomorrow, a state said they wanted restrictions on carbon fly rods, you know damn well BHA would be out there yapping away, on the SPECIFIC issue. They DO NOT do this with on the hunting side.

And when they start to support internal policies that are in fact antithetical to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 you know where the org is heading.

Oh, and read The True Believer by Eric Hoffer.

I see your point, I would argue that improving access positively affects everyone; hunters, anglers, hikers, bikers, etc. I would also argue many off the access issues I have seen them working on would probably be utilized more by hunters than any other user group.

I guess I appreciate them for who they are, and if they took Hunters and Angler out of the name, and still fought for public land and access, I would still appreciate them, because either way they are still helping.

I would be happy to see any literature or n BHA officials who are actively doing things or making deals to hurt hunting. I keep hearing about it, but no one ever seems to come up with the proof. Is abuse a joke? Sure, but I am not going to get my panties in a bunch about a past board member who came out as a bit nuts. I still shoot my Kimber after all, and I don’t see anyone attacking them for having been a past employer.

 

[alecvg]

Home Depot doesn’t get behind issues that that would hurt home builders and contractors.

Can you show me issues that BHA has gotten behind that hurt hunters? I keep hearing about this, but no one ever shows what they actually are, aside from a past board member coming out as anti 2a.

 

[BuckeyeRifleman]

I see your point, and I generally vote right. That being said, look at Montana this year- I could very well be wrong, but I can’t remember seeing a single good bill for hunting put forward by a republican, everything I saw would have been negative for 99% of hunters. I’ll happily eat crow if someone shows an example otherwise that I missed.

It’s a shitty spot to be in, I agree with republicans on the vast majority of issues, but I think anyone that says republicans are better for access, conservation, and protection of wild places are delusional, or too stubborn to be willing to admit it.

I get it man, I go round and round with some true hardcore libertarians (who are hunters) who are all 100% for selling every bit of public land. I also pay very close attention to the going’s on of the Montana legislature with regard to hunting and it’s true they have not been a friend of public land hunters, especially nonresidents.

But let’s contrast with SCI. They have an actual lobbying arm. They not only do a lot for lobbying on behalf of hunters and hunters rights, but they are active with both conservation and gun rights issues. Their political donations are all public, and it’s what I would call “revealing” when contrasted with other organizations.

I’m sure they aren’t perfect, no organization is, but I haven’t found anything bad yet.

I’m not saying BHA is all bad, but people haven’t developed a negative opinion about them out of thin air.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

I see your point, and I generally vote right. That being said, look at Montana this year- I could very well be wrong, but I can’t remember seeing a single good bill for hunting put forward by a republican, everything I saw would have been negative for 99% of hunters. I’ll happily eat crow if someone shows an example otherwise that I missed.

It’s a shitty spot to be in, I agree with republicans on the vast majority of issues, but I think anyone that says republicans are better for access, conservation, and protection of wild places are delusional, or too stubborn to be willing to admit it.

Don’t confuse Republican with conservative. They aren’t the same. And, don’t assume that conservatives want to sell public land. As the BHA and its affiliates suggest. It’s not true.

 

[Flyjunky]

Can you show me issues that BHA has gotten behind that hurt hunters? I keep hearing about this, but no one ever shows what they actually are, aside from a past board member coming out as anti 2a.

Isn’t that enough? Somebody that has those views should never represent a supposed “hunters” org.

 

[Mag_7s]

Welp, looks like me and my jeans are brought back in. Spurious correlation at best but it's kinda funny I guess but let's stay on topic shall we and not so focused on my pants. I stopped paying attention to BHA when Busse was an employee and having been on Kifaru cast. I walked away feeling like there was an agenda here that was not as pro hunting or pro 2a as I thought. In my opinion you can't be wishy washy about the subject because it's a slippery slope. You either support in full or you don't support at all. And this is my opinion. Once you start giving in, it's death by a thousand cuts. Other members said it perfectly; wolf in sheep's clothing and piggy backing off the backs of hunters. This may have changed since Tawney and Busse, but the taste is still in my mouth. The point is we get to choose who we support or not based on our values. Historically BHAs haven't aligned enough with mine. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate their mission of fighting for public land, but stay in your lane if that's your thing.

 

[alecvg]

Isn’t that enough? Somebody that has those views should never represent a supposed “hunters” org.

Your absolutely right, he shouldn’t, and he doesn’t. He is a past board member.

 

[diamond10x]

The BHA is exactly what they appear to be. It’s a group disguising as representing hunters, while offering nothing but being a PAC for liberal politics.

The only thing worse for the future of hunting besides openly opposing it is, to set smugly in the middle and try to tickle reality with lame excuses why you won’t pick a side.

Polarized is where we are and there is nothing wrong with that. Hunting rights should be guarded like our 2A rights. Spare me the “I’m a hunter” bit. You might be. But, if your politics or acceptance on issues contradict what’s best for hunting, then you are the enemy of hunting. It’s that friggin’ simple.

I could care less if there is public lands if hunting is no longer allowed. Which by the way is where I see the BHA filling its intended fundamental role. Protecting lands for the hikers, bikers, bird lovers, wolfies, and everyone else. Except……….hunters. All while claiming to be hunter friendly.

Enjoy your beers fellas. Swap sone stories of the deer and duck you killed. When you get serious about helping hunting, vote that way instead of rehearsing lies and feel goods fed to you by bought and paid for liberal lobbyists.

But but but there’s lots of stuff I use public land for. How dare you be like that just cause you can’t run a bullet or hook through it.

Well said! My exact thoughts on all of it.

 

[BuckeyeRifleman]

Don’t confuse Republican with conservative. They aren’t the same. And, don’t assume that conservatives want to sell public land. As the BHA and its affiliates suggest. It’s not true.

Nearly every conservative I know “gets it” with regards to public land. I spent a ton of time on ar15.com, which is hugely conservative and I’d say 85% of those guys are all about public land and the the opportunity for hunting and shooting it provides.

There is a vocal small majority that is dead set against it out of “principle” of small government but that’s few and far between.

There is a much larger percentage of folks on the left that are dead set against hunting and guns than there are people on the right against public land.

 

[HighUintas]

No hate. Just think they’re clowns. Listen to their podcast on kifaru cast from a couple years ago. Then add their stance on Colorado wolf introduction and I’m out!

Did they actually make a statement? I didn't think they said anything about it.

 

[Ucsdryder]

Did they actually make a statement? I didn't think they said anything about it.

Exactly! They said a bunch of nothing. We lost that vote by the slimmest of margins. Bha having a set of balls could very well have been the difference. Eff them for that forever.

 

[alecvg]

Exactly! They said a bunch of nothing. We lost that vote by the slimmest of margins. Bha having a set of balls could very well have been the difference. Eff them for that forever.

Colorado Wolf Statement

Backcountry Hunters & Anglers is the voice for our wild public lands, waters and wildlife.

www.backcountryhunters.org

You mean this statement about how they don’t support it?

 

[WV Mountaineer]

Can you show me issues that BHA has gotten behind that hurt hunters? I keep hearing about this, but no one ever shows what they actually are, aside from a past board member coming out as anti 2a.

Stop man. BHA has set out of every serious topic facing hunting. They won’t stand with hunters concerning wolves but, find all the time in the world to openly support candidates politically. Which has no use for the 2A. In any capacity except semi auto shotguns.


They pick and choose topics outside of hunter access. Then claim it’s not their role when called out on it. It’s what they’ve repeatedly done. It’s what they will continue to do. And, they’ll be successful doing it because of people like you. I’m not being mean. I’m being honest.

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Can you explain why the BHA openly ridicules fossil fuel procurement and mining while not mentioning the development of green energy on public land?

Where is that energy going to be farmed? Whose land is it going on? I’ll give you one guess. It’s not private. Why would they openly attack one form of energy development on public lands and not another? Why? Is it coincidence? No. It’s not.

I’m going to give you a piece of advice. Get off the BHA banter board and look at things with your own eyes. Just because they say something doesn’t mean it’s true. And, come to grips that politicians will say one thing to only intend another.

There is no political party intent on protecting public lands. They both have their lobbyists. They both play poker faces. But, neither can do one thing about developing those interests without groups like the BHA fooling the public into designating public ground out of multiple use management.

That is the role of the BHA. Proven by their own actions. Results matter.

I’m not trying to be hateful either. I’m just not going to type a bunch. So, it comes off blunt.

 

[Fartrell Cluggins]

Colorado Wolf Statement

Backcountry Hunters & Anglers is the voice for our wild public lands, waters and wildlife.

www.backcountryhunters.org

You mean this statement about how they don’t support it?

That statement used a lot of words to say nothing of substance. Hang a mealy mouth statement on a low traffic website and that's it?

 

[204guy]

Colorado Wolf Statement

Backcountry Hunters & Anglers is the voice for our wild public lands, waters and wildlife.

www.backcountryhunters.org

You mean this statement about how they don’t support it?

That’s dated 2/4/21. Do a little more googling and figure out when the CO vote was. That’s some classic bha.

 

[BuckeyeRifleman]

Stop man. BHA has set out of every serious topic facing hunting. They won’t stand with hunters concerning wolves but, find all the time in the world to openly support candidates politically. Which has no use for the 2A. In any capacity except semi auto shotguns.


They pick and choose topics outside of hunter access. Then claim it’s not their role when called out on it. It’s what they’ve repeatedly done. It’s what they will continue to do. And, they’ll be successful doing it because of people like you. I’m not being mean. I’m being honest.

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Can you explain why the BHA openly ridicules fossil fuel procurement and mining while not mentioning the development of green energy on public land?

Where is that energy going to be farmed? Whose land is it going on? I’ll give you one guess. It’s not private. Why would they openly attack one form of energy development on public lands and not another? Why? Is it coincidence? No. It’s not.

I’m going to give you a piece of advice. Get off the BHA banter board and look at things with your own eyes. Just because they say something doesn’t mean it’s true. And, come to grips that politicians will say one thing to only intend another.

There is no political party intent on protecting private lands. They both have their lobbyists. They both play poker faces. But, neither can do one thing about developing those interests without groups like the BHA fooling the public into designating public ground out of multiple use management.

That is the role of the BHA. Proven by their own actions. Results matter.

I’m not trying to be hateful either. I’m just not going to type a bunch. So, it comes off blunt.

Their complete silence on habitat destruction due to green energy development speaks volumes.

 

[alecvg]

Stop man. BHA has set out of every serious topic facing hunting. They won’t stand with hunters concerning wolves but, find all the time in the world to openly support candidates politically. Which has no use for the 2A. In any capacity except semi auto shotguns.


They pick and choose topics outside of hunter access. Then claim it’s not their role when called out on it. It’s what they’ve repeatedly done. It’s what they will continue to do. And, they’ll be successful doing it because of people like you. I’m not being mean. I’m being honest.

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Can you explain why the BHA openly ridicules fossil fuel procurement and mining while not mentioning the development of green energy on public land?

Where is that energy going to be farmed? Whose land is it going on? I’ll give you one guess. It’s not private. Why would they openly attack one form of energy development on public lands and not another? Why? Is it coincidence? No. It’s not.

I’m going to give you a piece of advice. Get off the BHA banter board and look at things with your own eyes. Just because they say something doesn’t mean it’s true. And, come to grips that politicians will say one thing to only intend another.

There is no political party intent on protecting private lands. They both have their lobbyists. They both play poker faces. But, neither can do one thing about developing those interests without groups like the BHA fooling the public into designating public ground out of multiple use management.

That is the role of the BHA. Proven by their own actions. Results matter.

I’m not trying to be hateful either. I’m just not going to type a bunch. So, it comes off blunt.

Again, I respectfully disagree. All I ever hear is “trust me, their bad” or “just look at the proof” but no one ever shows any proof. All
I’m asking for is some concrete examples.

I’m not drinking any koolaid, I don’t go to brew house meetups, and I don’t take their voting advice, I make my own decisions. All I am saying is that their mission is to support public lands and access. I could care less if they don’t do any action on 2a, because it’s not their mission. I also don’t care that the Elk Foundation doesn’t, it’s not their mission. That’s what I follow the NRA for.

In my limited following of them, I haven’t seen them come out against mining or fossil fuel procurement other than in isolated places instances, IE Pebble Mine and fuel fossils on winter range. I would argue that either of those things aren’t ideal.

Show some real proof and I will take you seriously, like the gentleman who pmd me some reading to do. I will happily read it, and may change my opinion if it prevents some actual facts.

 

[Ucsdryder]

Colorado Wolf Statement

Backcountry Hunters & Anglers is the voice for our wild public lands, waters and wildlife.

www.backcountryhunters.org

You mean this statement about how they don’t support it?

Bha wasn’t touching the wolf debate with a 10 foot pole when it was time to rally the troops. They had their chance but they’re too scared to take a stand. They had their chance.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

Again, I respectfully disagree. All I ever hear is “trust me, their bad” or “just look at the proof” but no one ever shows any proof. All
I’m asking for is some concrete examples.

I’m not drinking any koolaid, I don’t go to brew house meetups, and I don’t take their voting advice, I make my own decisions. All I am saying is that their mission is to support public lands and access. I could care less if they don’t do any action on 2a, because it’s not their mission. I also don’t care that the Elk Foundation doesn’t, it’s not their mission. That’s what I follow the NRA for.

In my limited following of them, I haven’t seen them come out against mining or fossil fuel procurement other than in isolated places instances, IE Pebble Mine and fuel fossils on winter range. I would argue that either of those things aren’t ideal.

Show some real proof and I will take you seriously, like the gentleman who pmd me some reading to do. I will happily read it, and may change my opinion if it prevents some actual facts.

Do a Google search. It’ll be easier than repeatedly saying you disagree with everyone. Plus, you’ll remember it if you do the work.

I’m not being mean but, it’s obvious you have a very limited exposure to their proclamations and opinions of the past. Spend a fraction of the time looking for what you claim to want to see. A search on this site alone will give you three days worth of reading.