BHA seems “all-in” with Biden

Hoodie said:
I think you're probably right about that last part. I'm surprised to hear Bush said that. The climate's definitely shifted on the conservative side since then. I'd think it would be political suicide for a Republican to say something like that these days.

Even if there wasn't a sunset clause (and like you said, they're almost certainly wouldn't be) that still doesn't mean that any legislation passed specifically targeting "assault rifles" would lead to further legislation being passed that would affect, say, bolt action rifles or gun hunting in general.

I get that there are guys who hunt with ARs. I also get that liberal politicians who don't know anything about firearms often have really loose definitions for what qualifies as an "assault rifle."

That doesn't mean that in real life there's a plan to end hunting starting with an AWB. That's my whole argument. Like others have mentioned, I don't think the two things are really connected in the general public's mind.
Click to expand...

Can you please define for the class exactly what an "Assault weapon" is?

I'm a member of BHA. I don't care for Land Tawney any more than I care for Wayne LaPierre and I'm an NRA member as well.
With all these groups there is part I like and part I dislike. If someone could point me to a group that I could 100% agree with, I'm all ears.

The guy that wants to lead is never the guy you want to lead, and the guy you want to lead is never the guy that wants to lead.
 
dieselchessy said:
Can you please define for the class exactly what an "Assault weapon" is?

I'm a member of BHA. I don't care for Land Tawney any more than I care for Wayne LaPierre and I'm an NRA member as well.
With all these groups there is part I like and part I dislike. If someone could point me to a group that I could 100% agree with, I'm all ears.

The guy that wants to lead is never the guy you want to lead, and the guy you want to lead is never the guy that wants to lead.
Click to expand...

My point was sort of about definitions applied in legislation tending to suck. Like how the aesthetics of a given gun tend to matter as much or more than the function (i.e. pistol grips vs capacity). Like I said, Iḿ not a supporter of strict gun control laws, especially when they don´t make sense.

I pretty much agree with everything else you said there. Given that you´re a BHA member and an NRA member Iḿ assuming you don´t think BHA is secretly out to get your guns and end capitalism. Youŕe probably just someone who gets that in real life stuff usually isn´t perfect. Seems reasonable to me.
 
Transfer of federal lands to states should not happen and it didn’t happen nor was it proposed by the Trump admin. BHA, indirectly and falsely (imho), targeted the Trump admin and his political appointees over and over. The regular drum beat of BHA’s press releases and advocacy were “Orange man bad” over and over.

Now that we “likely” have a new admin coming in, BHA seems to be fawning all over at least one potential appointee. The Vilsack pick is hyper partisan leftists. He hates any common sense management of our forests and if he isn’t “anti” hunting, he sure as heck isn’t “pro”.

Vilsack is an extreme climate change alarmist, he would do everything in his power to reduce emissions that could create carbon dioxide. This means more road and trail restrictions. Less logging and fire management. He sure as heck won’t advocate for “hunting” as a use for our forests.

I know climate change is real, I see it happening. Is it worth shutting down our economy and punishing our middle class? Should we be silent about China?

BHA seems to be more of a leftist PAC than a Public Land/Hunting/Fishing rights org. They make personal/political attacks and endorsements of people.

That’s my rant...
 
Maybe the greatest conspiracy is...all the conspiracy theories out there!
There are some many well intentioned people out there and a few crooks. The crooks will get away with things if their isn't great involvement by all.
If we want a pro hunting and backcountry protection from motorized vehicles support BHA, get involved and make or change policy from within.
Make your chapter more relevant to your concerns. One thing we cannot do...and that is nothing, imo
 
Billinsd said:
Transfer of Federal Lands to the States is more of a Libertarian cause. They as I believe it was never intended for the Federal Government to own so much land. The Lousiana Purchase changed everything. There is a spectrum of opinions on the gigantic tracts of forest and blm land. On the extreme end the hardcore Libertarians think they should all be transferred to the state, because that's what the founders planned. On the other hand people like me have been educated by folks on this forum that at least some states will sell the lands and have. I don't want all the Federal lands transfered to the states, which will never happen. I do want the forest circus and blm deregulated and drastically downsized and have there be more mining and development, because I want to drive my cars and heat my homes. Of course there needs to be some regulation of mining, petroleum, and development, but there is far too much now.
Click to expand...
Why is land transfer also clearly stated in the official republican platform then?
 
mtwarden said:
Is there a better organization for advocating for the protection of public lands than BHA?

Curious minds want to know.
Click to expand...
Yes

Maybe a better question is: Which organization is anti public lands?

I know the Wild Sheep Foundation actively purchases public grazing rights. WSF then retires them to protect wild sheep from disease spread by domestic flocks grazed on public lands.

I’m not completely familiar, but I seem to remember RMEF doing quite a bit of land and access purchases to make available to hunting access, I don’t know all the details though.
 
Middleofnowhere said:
I’m not completely familiar, but I seem to remember RMEF doing quite a bit of land and access purchases to make available to hunting access, I don’t know all the details though.
Click to expand...
RMEF will buy land, at least in the East, as well as do habitat improvement projects. They don’t seem to do as much to protect existing public lands though, and they haven’t done much work in my state ever since CWD put elk reintroductions on the back burner.
 
Last edited:
RMEF does some great work no doubt, but their purchases/easements aren’t always tied to allowing public hunting

our department, MTFWP, always tied our easements to public hunting which I thought was a great stance
 
Zork said:
Why is land transfer also clearly stated in the official republican platform then?
Click to expand...
I didn't know that. Some Republicans lean Libertarian, Rand Paul the most by far. Post a link to the clearly stated land transfer language in the platform. Thanks
 
Last edited:
Republican Platform
Go to page 21 to the last paragraph to see where they sugarcoat turning public lands over to the states.

I also wouldn’t say the Republican Party is libertarian leaning anymore, not when they support tariffs on foreign goods and subsidies for farmers, but that’s an entirely different conversation.
 
How about Izzak Walton Foundation? They are one of the original and most successful conservation organizations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Mid life crisis career change… Remote jobs?
6 7 8
Replies
142
Views
14K
Blacktocomm
Blacktocomm
z987k
Went in for Moose, came out with a Ram.
2 3
Replies
54
Views
6K
Bowfinatic
Bowfinatic
B
  • Locked
BHA Colorado Wolf Statement
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
8K
robby denning
robby denning
Broomd
In case ya missed it...Deep state edition...
5 6 7
Replies
126
Views
10K
AKDoc
AKDoc
shanevg
VP Candidate Paul Ryan Interview with SCI
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
trevore
T

Latest posts

Featured Video

Stats

Threads
325,434
Messages
3,419,795
Members
75,549
Latest member
53Bandit

Latest Articles

Back
Top