Are you a Backcountry Hunters and Anglers member?

[Schaaf]

So it was already illegal? What will having another law do to stop the guy who was already breaking the law? If the laws are not being enforced now more won't do any good.

There was nothing illegal about him riding his jet ski four wheeler combo in the river, that can't support a jet boat. Where he became illegal was when he dropped the wheels out from under the jet ski and drove up into the Wilderness Study Area. Should we get rid of game laws since Poachers are always going to poach?

 

[dotman]

There was nothing illegal about him riding his jet ski four wheeler combo in the river, that can't support a jet boat. Where he became illegal was when he dropped the wheels out from under the jet ski and drove up into the Wilderness Study Area. Should we get rid of game laws since Poachers are always going to poach?

His jet ski has wheels?

 

[Schaaf]

His jet ski has wheels?

One of these.

 

[Grumman]

I had to Google it because I had never heard of one either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dotman]

One of these.

That's pretty dang cool!!!

 

[ScottH]

Just when I thought I'd seen it all....Switchblade: 2015 Gibbs Quadski XL | The Watercraft Journal | The industry’s leading resource for enthusiasts and single-largest, most popular PWC in the world

 

[406]

It's real....

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[Scottyboy]

I am, once my current membership ends I will be doing the life time membership. Going to do the rendezvous next year, hope to see some of you there!

 

[COSA]

I am a member, though I do have some reservations. BHA does seem to come out against all proposed energy & mineral resource developments, especially in MT. They seem to adopt positions based on politics or bumper stickers, rather than the studies & data submitted when going through the rigorous permitting process. We all use these resources to a greater extent than any other country in the world; so if the data shows that modern extraction will not significantly effect the environment, then BHA should adhere to the 3rd party/State DEQ data vs, scare tactic politics. There are certainly many locations that should not be mined or developed; if you use anything that can't be grown (fuel, computer, car, house, electricity, roads, guns, reels, bullets, etc.), then we have to be open to responsible extraction and reclamation.
BHA does do a great job on the public land issue; I'll withhold my life membership or major contributions for now.

 

[KurtR]

There was nothing illegal about him riding his jet ski four wheeler combo in the river, that can't support a jet boat. Where he became illegal was when he dropped the wheels out from under the jet ski and drove up into the Wilderness Study Area. Should we get rid of game laws since Poachers are always going to poach?

Nope never said get rid of anything. If it is already against the law what he was doing what will the quiet water do to stop him. Maybe just ban jet ski four wheeler combos because they are becoming so common.....

 

[vanish]

I just want to comment on the idea of "What good is banning something if nobody is doing it?"

If you wait to propose a restriction until a bunch of people are doing something, then you wind up running against "historical privileges" and its a lot harder to get that restriction passed. When you can examine a piece of technology and understand the possibilities BEFORE people are abusing them, you're ahead of the game.

 

[brewer427]

I just want to comment on the idea of "What good is banning something if nobody is doing it?"

If you wait to propose a restriction until a bunch of people are doing something, then you wind up running against "historical privileges" and its a lot harder to get that restriction passed. When you can examine a piece of technology and understand the possibilities BEFORE people are abusing them, you're ahead of the game.

I dont know if your talking about Quite Waters, but if you are the BHA proposal is going to effect water that has had Jet boats on it for many years, it is not a "NEW THING". And there has been no issues with those jet boats on said waters. I also have to disagree partially on the statement of "until a bunch of people are doing something". Drones were already in use for fishing and hunting videos being made in part with the use of drones and BHA had know problems getting the ball rolling to get that shut down, I commend them for that. If the proposal was solely against Air Boats I could see that because they are not limited to the need of water to act as a road and propulsion, and they could definitely get to places that they dont belong being there.

At the end of the day it is very easy for guys to start thinking that the Quite Waters Proposal is going to cater to fly guides and non motorized use, especially when you have the upper Yellowstone, gallatin, Madison, Jefferson, ruby, beaver head, big hole, upper Clark fork, bitterroot, Blackfoot, upper flathead, upper Missouri and many other small creeks and rivers that have no Jet boats running on them that you can go float and fish. There is only a handful of rivers that you can feasibly run a jet boat on and those few sections of rivers are far outweighed by the ones you can not run a jetboat on.

 

[mvmnts]

I'm not a BHA member yet, but I will be. I am just saving up so I can take advantage of one of their lifetime membership deals. I know multi-use is a hot topic, but for myself personally, I value land that is foot travel only, and I like that BHA is ready to protect the small bits of that land that we have left.

 

[Schaaf]

I dont know if your talking about Quite Waters, but if you are the BHA proposal is going to effect water that has had Jet boats on it for many years, it is not a "NEW THING". And there has been no issues with those jet boats on said waters. I also have to disagree partially on the statement of "until a bunch of people are doing something". Drones were already in use for fishing and hunting videos being made in part with the use of drones and BHA had know problems getting the ball rolling to get that shut down, I commend them for that. If the proposal was solely against Air Boats I could see that because they are not limited to the need of water to act as a road and propulsion, and they could definitely get to places that they dont belong being there.

At the end of the day it is very easy for guys to start thinking that the Quite Waters Proposal is going to cater to fly guides and non motorized use, especially when you have the upper Yellowstone, gallatin, Madison, Jefferson, ruby, beaver head, big hole, upper Clark fork, bitterroot, Blackfoot, upper flathead, upper Missouri and many other small creeks and rivers that have no Jet boats running on them that you can go float and fish. There is only a handful of rivers that you can feasibly run a jet boat on and those few sections of rivers are far outweighed by the ones you can not run a jetboat on.

Do you realize Quiet Waters is not an all or nothing proposal? You can voice support for the small streams being protected while opposing the larger river restrictions.

 

[rcfireninja]

Yes I am. Their mission to preserve our public lands is important so that my kids have the same opportunities that I have now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gobbler36]

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

Crazy how many people think this way, BHA isn't against ATV or UTV use they are for responsible use, in my short time in Idaho I can't tell you how many people I've seen way off the trail on their dirt bike or 4 wheeler. I personally don't hunt off a dirt bike but hunt with guys that do. Roads and motorized trails aren't going anywhere. Rinella has a good saying that he doesn't fear for the future of roads and fears more for the future of true isolated places. Just because your days of hiking in are past you doesn't mean my sons or your grandsons, etc shouldn't-have the same opportunity be able to hike in and enjoy a somewhat remote wilderness experience like you once did. The beauty is these lands are managed for multiple use which BHA states numerous times. You'll always have a place to ride your atv into but we might not always have wilderness unless we fight to preserve it. it often blows my mind to think how many hunters think that advocating for clean air and water is some leftist hippie approach, BHA can't stand for this bipartisan line drawing that gets no one anywhere. I know when I go hunt I want cool crisp air and clean crisp water and I don't feel like that makes me part of the leftist climate change doctrinated person