BHA seems “all-in” with Biden

[204guy]

Partnering with HSUS is okay as long as you have 1 teeny tiny little miniscule common goal. At least that's what we're supposed to just shut up and believe.

 

[Middleofnowhere]

I think if you provided concrete examples of their moral treachery, you wouldn't have to rely on casting aspersions and nebulous character assassination.
BTW, what group are you Director of?

I was just hoping BHA would stay out of partisan politics. I guess I naively wanted them to just oppose or advocate “policy”, not people.

You have 36 total posts on rokslide and 25 of those posts are in this thread. You want my personal info? I regret starting this thread.

 

[Ozarkansas]

For me the state I live in has a big impact on whether or not I am involved in BHA. In Arkansas they do a ton of good with clean-up, R3, and advocating for public land areas that were about to get sold off. Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, NWTF, and the Nature Conservancy also do a ton of good work there. RMEF on the other hand doesn't seem to be doing anything with a major positive impact in that state.
Meanwhile I've been living in Texas for a year and the public land access sucks. The hunting culture is all about hunting over feeders and the BHA chapter seems to barely function due to a lack of interest and/or public lands to protect. When i move back to Arkansas I'll likely get involved again but not down here unless something changes.

 

[Middleofnowhere]

...
Meanwhile I've been living in Texas for a year and the public land access sucks. The hunting culture is all about hunting over feeders and the BHA chapter seems to barely function due to a lack of interest and/or public lands to protect. When i move back to Arkansas I'll likely get involved again but not down here unless something changes.

I love the state of Texas and had an opportunity to move there. It probably would have been a great financial decision for my family. The lack of public (federal) land in the state was probably the main reason we didn’t make the move. I know they do have some state lands available for hunting, but the amount is very small. If you are a hunter, you pretty much have to own the land or pay for access to the land. Nothing wrong with that, it just isn’t what we wanted.

 

[Ozarkansas]

I love the state of Texas and had an opportunity to move there. It probably would have been a great financial decision for my family. The lack of public (federal) land in the state was probably the main reason we didn’t make the move. I know they do have some state lands available for hunting, but the amount is very small. If you are a hunter, you pretty much have to own the land or pay for access to the land. Nothing wrong with that, it just isn’t what we wanted.

yeah If you're used to having lots of public land and really pretty scenery Texas can be a hard pill to swallow. I'm lucky because I can hunt on the bases here, but if it weren't for that I'd be having a rough time. Even my wife -who is from Texas- is ready to leave it behind after experiencing Arkansas, Oregon, and Washington. The fishing is awesome though, and if you are one of the lucky ones with access to good land the hunting can be unbelievably good.

 

[WCB]

But....but...PUBLIC LANDOWNER! CONSERVATIONING! CRAFT BREWS! VOTE SINGLE ISSUE!

 

[204guy]

But....but...PUBLIC LANDOWNER! CONSERVATIONING! CRAFT BREWS! VOTE SINGLE ISSUE!

You're only supposed to vote single issue if its public lands, because well for many that is literally the only 1 singular issue they agree with.

 

[SirChooCH]

For me the state I live in has a big impact on whether or not I am involved in BHA. In Arkansas they do a ton of good with clean-up, R3, and advocating for public land areas that were about to get sold off. Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, NWTF, and the Nature Conservancy also do a ton of good work there. RMEF on the other hand doesn't seem to be doing anything with a major positive impact in that state.
Meanwhile I've been living in Texas for a year and the public land access sucks. The hunting culture is all about hunting over feeders and the BHA chapter seems to barely function due to a lack of interest and/or public lands to protect. When i move back to Arkansas I'll likely get involved again but not down here unless something changes.

That's how they got me for a year. I was in Texas and did the "pay to play" on private land a few times, didn't even know what BHA was. Moved back to Michigan where there's plenty of public lands and thought I should be on team BHA. But then when government illegally shut down boating, camping, threatened fishing and spring turkey season due to lack of officers during shut down...BHA wouldn't take a stance at all yet our small local MUCC group here sued the state and got everything opened back up. So what was the point of BHA if they won't actually take a stance on access infringement which they claim is their goal? Let the membership slip.

 

[3forks]

I think the real reason I can’t get behind BHA is because they promote pint nights at craft breweries. I can’t stand craft beers and the ”culture” associated with them.

The world seemed so much simpler, and the hunting everywhere seemed so much better when we just had domestic beers.

Think about it, once craft beers hit the scene everybody started getting together and talking about the nuances of flavor and obsessing over these damn beers. Brewers started coming up with cheesy names for their beers, and added trendy merchandising of stickers and trucker hats to accompany their beers. I think all this led to people starting to “share feelings“ over beers and that’s where it all started to go wrong. Sharing feelings is for wine drinkers and people in therapy. You get a bunch of people in a room talking about the 2nd amendment, public land, and point creep while drinking these stupid craft beers and you‘re going to start having arguments.

Seems like we could heal as a group if we all just started drinking whatever is cheapest and coldest.

 

[ODB]

Here’s a question...there is no doubt that the org knows people are frustrated with them and the (even perceived) lack of direct, tangible support for a wide range of hunting-related topics that may or may not be popular but are important to hunters.

Why have they not responded to those criticisms by officially shifting policies so they can reach across the aisle, so to speak, and ensure those hunters that the org does indeed actively represent them?

And by the “org” I am largely speaking of the national org. From conversations I have had, the local orgs seem “more like me,” but that is due to folks at the local level. There should not be that kind of disparity between the national/local orgs that the seeming ambivalence of the national org to address concerns results in people not wanting to get involved.

 

[Violent Hippie]

It was pretty obvious when the BHA rep was on Kifarucast that they are a bunch of Libs . BHA being a liberal organization is fine or whatever but not of my ilk . I give them a thumbs down. Straight up. The whole Montana Sportsmen for Obama thing has always rubbed me wrong as well.

 

[iashow]

It was pretty obvious when the BHA rep was on Kifarucast that they are a bunch of Libs . BHA being a liberal organization is fine or whatever but not of my ilk . I give them a thumbs down. Straight up. The whole Montana Sportsmen for Obama thing has always rubbed me wrong as well.

Looking at the definition; what is bad about being liberal?

 

[bigdesert10]

All I know is Land Tawney is a leftist shill, and at least here in Idaho, I rarely see BHA's name brought up in actual cases of land access issues. We have had some significant cases in recent years and the only time I see their name on anything is if it's a pint night or Rendezvous (where the likes of Yvon Chouinard are key note speakers).

Meanwhile, other lesser known orgs, like the Idaho Wildlife Federation are towing the line and accomplishing meaningful work. If I donate any more money to one of these advocacy groups, it will be to IWF. I'm ok with having political disagreements with personnel within a group (I'm sure Brian Brooks of IWF didn't vote like me this last election), but when it affects the mission, I'm out.

It makes me a little sick that I've defended BHA on here in the past. Live and learn I guess.

 

[bigdesert10]

Looking at the definition; what is bad about being liberal?

The term has been hijacked by progressive leftists. The left is not the least bit liberal in the classical sense.

 

[Violent Hippie]

Looking at the definition; what is bad about being liberal?

seriously ?

 

[iashow]

The term has been hijacked by progressive leftists. The left is not the least bit liberal in the classical sense.

No disagreement that the hijacking of terms and misuse of labels by both parties, most media sources, and the vast majority of the public (myself included) has done nothing but add fuel to a destructive fire.

 

[iashow]

seriously ?

Yes, by all means. "Seriously?"

 

[ODB]

There are two “liberals”. Classic liberals are free thinking libertarian types, many modern (US) liberals are the progressives mentioned in the definition and are more leftist than liberal.

leftists being those who can’t seem to keep their minds on their own affairs and push agendas further and further left.

it looks like one will take office pretty soon. A report just came out saying Biden is considering immediate executive actions to address “gun violence.”

 

[WCB]

For me the state I live in has a big impact on whether or not I am involved in BHA. In Arkansas they do a ton of good with clean-up, R3, and advocating for public land areas that were about to get sold off. Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, NWTF, and the Nature Conservancy also do a ton of good work there. RMEF on the other hand doesn't seem to be doing anything with a major positive impact in that state.
Meanwhile I've been living in Texas for a year and the public land access sucks. The hunting culture is all about hunting over feeders and the BHA chapter seems to barely function due to a lack of interest and/or public lands to protect. When i move back to Arkansas I'll likely get involved again but not down here unless something changes.

RMEF and NWTF work hand and hand a lot...along the Mississippi and east RMEF does have lesser showing however that is where NWTF takes over and the same "outwest". So not surprising RMEF isn't deeply involved in AR.

 

[Ozarkansas]

RMEF and NWTF work hand and hand a lot...along the Mississippi and east RMEF does have lesser showing however that is where NWTF takes over and the same "outwest". So not surprising RMEF isn't deeply involved in AR.

Oh for sure. I'm not trying to knock RMEF at all, I know they do a ton of good work. I was bringing them up more as an example of how these organizations don't necessarily benefit every state the same. My views on this topic as a whole are that hunters should be active in whatever organization they see the most benefit out of. For now, in Arkansas, BHA is one of those I see a ton of benefit in. I don't see RMEF as very helpful in my area, but I totally understand why people support it. And on the flip side I think SOME of the criticisms of BHA (on certain aspects of predator and trapping issues, and not fighting to keep lands open during the pandemic) are completely valid.

Also I think BHA's decentralization is both a blessing and a curse- it allows state chapters with good boards and lots of activism to take the initiative and do a ton of good, but it can leave its weaker chapters (looking at you, Tejas) hanging in the wind