Are you a Backcountry Hunters and Anglers member?

[hflier]

Yes

 

[mlevimadden]

Yes, because backcountry hunting would not be possible for me without public land, so the transfer of lands from federal to state control is an issue I feel strongly about. I feel like BHA uses their membership dollars well and aligns closely with my views on most issues.

 

[Jskaanland]

No... not yet. Thinking about it but need a few months to grow a big beard, get a flat billed hat and some branded T-shirts like Yeti, Mtn Ops, First Lite etc... Looks like a great organization though.

I got in with some fuzz on my chin and a standard flex fit. I just told them, I would be willing to try a flatty.

 

[TJ]

Yes. for their public land advocacy.

We need an organization to keep an eye on jerks trying to sell it out from under us.

 

[vanish]

Yes - I met Tim Brass at the grand opening of Cabela's a few years ago here in CO. I took one of their great bumper stickers but forgot all about the organization. Then BHA started having pint nights in my town, so I attended. What a bunch of awesome folks?! I joined right away.

My wife and I attended the CO BHA rendezvous last year. Had an awesome time speaking with friendly and knowledgable people, hanging out around a campfire and made some new friends. We got to meet what we refer to as the "Old Guard" around here - The guys that have been "fighting the fight" for public lands for decades, including one member in his 90s. Some real hardcore folks in that bunch - made me feel like a wuss. My wife joined separately after that.

Since then, I've been on four fishing trips and three hunting trips with other members of BHA. Still haven't met a member I didn't like.

EDIT: Oh, I forgot to mention; I already had the requisite beard. When I upgraded my membership this year, they sent me the flat brimmed hat. Still looking for one of those branded T-Shirts - the only ones I have are Cabela's T-Shirts that are over 10 years old.

 

[Huntindog45]

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

 

[paleraider]

Yes for all of the reasons mentioned above. They are great advocates for our public lands. I have met the founders and they are legitimately great people who love hunting and fishing in public lands.

 

[JWP58]

No. But I'm considering the seek outside option for the tipi, stove, and pack.

 

[Dan-o]

Just joined (3 year membership) when I saw this post!

 

[Mtnboy]

Yes, 70% of people hunt on Public Lands. BHA is in existence to help us maintain our access to those Public Lands as well as help maintain the health of those Public Lands for multiple use going forward. I'd like to stress the MULTIPLE use, BHA is not anti OHV/motorcycles, or logging or mining or any of that, they are for Responsible and Reasonable Multiple use.

BHA is one of the only Conservation Orgs that I'm a part of that is very focused towards keeping their membership active and engaged. They are constantly sending out emails with easy links to let your elected officials know how you feel on issues, they are actively pushing members to attend Town Hall Meetings, Fish and Game Meetings etc. Most Orgs just want your cash every year and as many donations as possible in between Membership renewals, BHA is very focused on making sure their members are "Part of the Fight".

If you're on the fence on joining, hit me up, I'd be more than happy to answer any questions or concerns or point you in the right direction to get them answered to the best of my ability.

Also, as someone else mentioned, you can now do Payment plans on the Life Membership options.

Like Randy Newburg says, the time is NOW to make the Public Lands issue just like guns, we need every politician to know that things aren't going to go well for them if they try to take them from us.

Stand and fight or stand to lose!

 

[todde1792]

No, for the simple fact that I didn't know how involved they are. I assumed that they were just another "conservation" group looking for member fees. After reading this thread, they seem much more involved than i had realized. I'll look into it now, so thanks to everyone that posted on here, you've opened my eyes!

Ethan

 

[AK Troutbum]

Yes, I've been a member for the last 3 years now and I'm thinking that I should just go ahead and become a life time member. Great organization, as previously stated.

 

[Bmcox86]

I've been a member 2 years and plan on upgrading to a lifetime member at some point in the next year.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[GFY]

Yes. And I will also probably upgrade to a lifetime membership soon too.

 

[LaGriz]

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

 

[pwsINC]

Life member here. Do it.
Enough good points made above

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

 

[vanish]

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

This is a quote from Land Tawney, Executive Director, BHA

Tawney said it is critical that federally-managed lands remain open as multiple use lands.

“The federal government, or government agencies, manage it for us — that’s our land,” Tawney said. “When that land is managed for multiple use, you can have grazing, mineral development, but also hunting and fishing, which plays a vital role.”Tawney said it is critical that federally-managed lands remain open as multiple use lands.

Heinrich meets with hunters to talk land use


I understand your concerns about ATV/UTV. There are lots of members that don't like them, but on the whole I would say most members understand they have a place. If BHA can find a way to get vehicle access to a piece of property that has no access currently, you can be assured they will work toward it.

 

[jquarnberg]

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.

 

[Jason Snyder]

Yes, I am a proud member and supporter.

Why? Hunters need to think a macro scale and a micro scale. Protecting local winter range for deer and elk is micro scale. Protecting public lands, influencing use policy and management plans, and influencing conservation measures such as the sage grouse plan is macro scale. Doing one is great, both is much, much better.

I think BHA unfairly gets labeled as anti-ATV, when I don't think that is the case. They worked with pro ATV groups in developing the Clearwater Initiative in Idaho, which was a true collaborative effort. I know that term is kind of lost in this day and age, but it still holds a great deal of relevance.

I can state for fact the chapter I am involved with has spoken in favor of MORE timber harvest on a local forest, and MORE ATV accessible areas. Kind of contradicts some of the BS that gets thrown around.

Great organization, and if you aren't a member, I encourage you to look at what they are doing in your area. The Wyoming Chapter is a great example of what BHA members really stand for, and the values they exemplify as sportsmen. A tip of the hat to Buzz Hettick and crew for all they do, and for setting the bar high.

 

[JeremiahH]

Did the Lifetime membership a few years ago when it was Kimber stuff. Wish I could have done it more recently though. The seek outside packages are sweet!

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk