BHA Supporting Legislation Outlawing the Sale of Information on Big Game Locations

[jspradley]

I have to wonder if the real "conspiracy" here is that some people just don't want more hunters crowding "their" land and will bitch and moan for any reason about any org that might push for something that could benefit people other than just themselves.

 

[Matt Cashell]

A) Do people routinely give money to orgs with which they do not agree and do not have a vested interest in how that org spends their money?
.

So ... innuendo. Got it.

B) A public comment by an organization or that organization’s leader (remember, they are a tax exempt org that has to play by different rules than you or I) is tantamount to political speech when it preferences one candidate over another. They skirt this too close in my opinion.

That post was solely about passing LWCF and the SML’s lack of support for it. It made no mention of his election or any other. Being a Republican does not make one immune to criticism. Raising awareness about the issue is exactly what BHA is supposed to be doing, and I am glad for it.

 

[Billinsd]

Wait you mean a pro public land organization endorsed a president that did a fair amount to protect and preserve public lands?

BHA is a Pro Public Land Organization. That is their mission statement boiled down. That's not a bad thing necessarily, either. So long as someone is pro public land they are fine. If they are not pro public land or not pro public land enough that is not good. That's what it seems like.
Bill

 

[CorbLand]

He wasn’t president at the time, he was an unknown quantity.

I was too young to remember/care what Obama’s stance in public lands were when he ran the first time but it’s not a stretch to see that Democrats are generally nicer to public lands than Republicans. It’s not really as big of a stretch as you want to make it to see why they would endorse him while he was running for president.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CorbLand]

That post was solely about passing LWCF and the SML’s lack of support for it. It made no mention of his election or any other. Being a Republican does not make one immune to criticism. Raising awareness about the issue is exactly what BHA is supposed to be doing, and I am glad for it.

But...but Republican=Good, Democrat=Bad.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Billinsd]

Speaking of politics, I wish there was a single party that supported my views on public access and hunting on those public lands, along with the right to keep and carry all of my guns. It just doesn’t exist at this point in time, so I have to choose.

The answer to your question is moderate Republicans. Bill

 

[Billinsd]

But...but Republican=Good, Democrat=Bad.

Politicians are almost all bad. Republicans bad, Democrats much more bad.

 

[jspradley]

I was too young to remember/care what Obama’s stance in public lands were when he ran the first time but it’s not a stretch to see that Democrats are generally nicer to public lands than Republicans. It’s not really as big of a stretch as you want to make it to see why they would endorse him while he was running for president.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe folks need to step up and demand that the GOP support public lands then we won't be having this moral purity hissy fit.

 

[BuckeyeRifleman]

Maybe folks need to step up and demand that the GOP support public lands then we won't be having this moral purity hissy fit.

I think it’s much more likely to talk a Republican into being pro public land than it is trying to talk a Democrat into being pro gun or pro hunting.

 

[BuckeyeRifleman]

I’m still trying to figure out how the RMEF has done so much actual good for public land and hunter access while staying out of political controversy while the BHA has managed to become a magnet for controversy while accomplishing so little.

 

[CorbLand]

I’m still trying to figure out how the RMEF has done so much actual good for public land and hunter access while staying out of political controversy while the BHA has managed to become a magnet for controversy while accomplishing so little.

I think it’s because RMEF was built upon enhancing lands for the benefit of elk. BHA was built to fight for public lands at the political level.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Schism]

Maybe folks need to step up and demand that the GOP support public lands then we won't be having this moral purity hissy fit.

Matt Rosendale’s campaign and failed bid at the US Senate is one example of how Republicans are learning that they better reassess their positions on public land and its uses. Folks in Montana demanded a US Senator that was friendly to public land sportsmen and conservation...they elected the one who held those values and practiced what he preached. If the Republicans don’t figure it out before the next election cycle they will likely lose again.

 

[Mike7]

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me the dubious source of many BHA donations is not a primary hangup when the immediate goal of some of these organizations is obviously the same as BHA, despite that the stated long term goals may be different? And I don't have an issue with parts of the core mission of BHA, although the actions or words of many of its members definitely rub me the wrong way at times.

Because of all of this, I guess that I am still somewhat on the fence with respect to the "national BHA" and to whether they are going to continue to move in a direction of doing more good than bad, as I see it. And maybe it is more of a PR or style issue that is my problem, and it is mostly the views of some of its members that I take issue with? I probably shouldn't hold the organization responsible for some of its supporters, but it does seem to have its fair share of....well I'll just call them big gov't types.

Some things I like:
When "they" (the organization or often just its members/supporters) work on access to public lands. When they work with groups like mountain bikers cooperatively to get or maintain access for more than just hunters. When they bring public attention to conservation issues. When they support hunting and fishing being protected on the various federal and state land designations.

Some things I don't like:
When they call people conspiracy theorists, some of whom may just have legitimate criticisms that are harder to address than just attempting to marginalize any critics. When they get into legislating hunting ethics issues. Sometimes when they delve into land and water use issues in areas that already allow hunting and fishing. Sometime when they support land previously open to multiple uses then becoming Wilderness. When they demonize politicians or misrepresent their views (e.g. Mike Lee) without taking a deeper more well rounded look at things.

 

[Mike7]

Unfettered immigration and illegal immigration that is driving our population expansion is one of the primary threats to our ecosystem, yet I see politicians who are heartily supported by BHA members, but who are pro-illegal and unfettered legal immigration. Much of the land in the West which is critical wintering habitat, critical habitat for migrating birds, etc. is privately owned and being developed at an astonishing rate. Rapidly increasing population has led to county land planners and ranchers/farmers selling out to developers, and also as such to increased pressure to develop natural resources.

I would love to see the Federal gov't sell a bunch of land in Utah and Nevada, and then take that money and purchase some of the remaining undeveloped valley wintering areas adjacent to national forest throughout the west, opening this land up to multiple use, rather than the current patchwork of closed private land tracts that offer people tax incentives to keep these small patches of private land undeveloped for a temporary period only.

And I nominate Randy Newberg and Matt Cashell as President & Vice President of BHA, the best spokesmen that BHA could have, assuming they are mostly accurate on what BHA is really about.

 

[Billinsd]

Unfettered immigration and illegal immigration that is driving our population expansion is one of the primary threats to our ecosystem, yet I see politicians who are heartily supported by BHA members, but who are pro-illegal and unfettered legal immigration. Much of the land in the West which is critical wintering habitat, critical habitat for migrating birds, etc. is privately owned and being developed at an astonishing rate. Rapidly increasing population has led to county land planners and ranchers/farmers selling out to developers, and also as such to increased pressure to develop natural resources.

I would love to see the Federal gov't sell a bunch of land in Utah and Nevada, and then take that money and purchase some of the remaining undeveloped valley wintering areas adjacent to national forest throughout the west, opening this land up to multiple use, rather than the current patchwork of closed private land tracts that offer people tax incentives to keep these small patches of private land undeveloped for a temporary period only.

And I nominate Randy Newberg and Matt Cashell as President & Vice President of BHA, the best spokesmen that BHA could have, assuming they are mostly accurate on what BHA is really about.

Amen!!!!! I'm here at our Southern border and there is a gigantic wave of legal, illegal, and refugees. Thousands and thousands of them. I'm getting out of here with my family. That means more houses, and shopping centers somewhere in Utah, Idaho, Arizona, Montana. Maybe 2 houses, one for winter one for the rest of the time. As more people pile into the country more rivers will get dammed, more roads, infrastructure, etc.

 

[dirtytough]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.fc657beef7f4

Curious what BHA's stance is on this? This thread was started because BHA said its not ETHICAL to pay for info on an animals location. I personally can't see how someone can say that is unethical but guiding is ethical. How about paying a guide, showing up to a bait site, and whacking yogi when he comes in for a meal? Ethical?

I could buy a scouting package for my wife with exact coordinates of a buck in the high country and she probably couldn't kill it. I could pay someone to bait and set up her stand, and she would have a very high chance of killing a bear by herself. Yet the scouting package isn't ETHICAL according to BHA and some on this thread.

It will be really telling to see if BHA comes out with a position on this.

 

[Matt Cashell]

Nothing new about controversy over bear baiting, even among hunters.

I see your point, but many see different ethical rules when it comes to predators. I am ok with leg traps for wolves, but not for deer. Hounds for lion, but not for elk, etc.

 

[BuzzH]

No position to take and nothing at this point any hunter could do to change it.

The lawsuit has been filed against the USFS/USFWS on grounds of not complying with rules and regulations, in particular a 1990 era EA.

That's really between the FS and the serial litigators and will be decided in a courtroom.

What exactly do you suggest any individual hunter, or hunting group do right now that would help?

We aren't going to influence a lawsuit, the judge, etc.

IMO/E about all I can see doing is to wait until the lawsuit is over...if it doesn't impact baiting/bear hunting, we're good.

If it somehow goes south, then we can ask the States of Wyoming and/or Idaho to intervene to file an appeal on the right of States to manage game as they see fit.

As it stands right now, I don't see how any statement, by anyone, is going to help decided a lawsuit.

For the record, I fully support how Wyoming and Idaho GF agencies are managing their black bear hunting. They have used sound science and common sense in regulations.

 

[Okhotnik]

At first I thought you might have been onto something, but the more information that comes out on these two points leads me further away from your view point.

It seems to me there are some partisan politics playing with people’s emotions and they can’t put them aside.

Speaking of politics, I wish there was a single party that supported my views on public access and hunting on those public lands, along with the right to keep and carry all of my guns. It just doesn’t exist at this point in time, so I have to choose.

I see this as no different than choosing to support BHA, which I do. I also support the NRA and RMEF.

I guess I am a confused hipster doofus with guns that’s waiting to sneak into the walls of your city and steal your children. I will make sure not to wear a flat brim hat though because you will all see right through that disguise!

Curse your flat brim hat!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MtGomer]

BHA receives funding from sources concerned about wild land conservation and public access. Nobody in this thread or any other has provided any evidence that this money BHA has received has gone towards anything questionable. BHA uses money to gain new members, raise awareness, and advocate for their core values, as listed on the website. Of course, some of that money also goes directly to projects on the ground, youth activities, hunter recruitment, and even supporting litigation to open public access where it has been denied.

BHA Fights for Public Access in Montana's Crazy Mountains

BHA Fights for Public Access in Montana's Crazy Mountains

www.backcountryhunters.org

BHA doesn't support politicians, period. No BHA money has gone to any political candidate, "dubious" or not. That part of your statement is just false.

Just to clear something up on the crazies... the Forest Service ignored/did not respond to that letter of intent to sue, and thus far a lawsuit has not been filed and MT BHA has stated they are unsure what, if any actions will be taken.

I’m not taking sides in the bigger argument going on in this thread, just providing information about what is going on in the Crazies, since I enthusiastically posted about this many pages ago in this thread when that letter to the USFS was initially sent.
In my opinion, that letter was a great thing, if it is backed up with action. Hopefully those more in the know are just figuring out the best path forward and not letting it go.