BHA rendezvous !

[WV Mountaineer]

Their complete silence on habitat destruction due to green energy development speaks volumes.

Yes it does. To anyone intent on the truth it should be a smoking gun.

 

[alecvg]

Do a Google search. It’ll be easier than repeatedly saying you disagree with everyone. Plus, you’ll remember it if you do the work.

I’m not being mean but, it’s obvious you have a very limited exposure to their proclamations and opinions of the past. Spend a fraction of the time looking for what you claim to want to see. A search on this site alone will give you three days worth of reading.

Lol.

Again, seemingly Factless opinions, with zero evidence. I appreciate your trying not to be mean, and neither am I when I say I often read these threads, and again, it is factless opinions, everyone says to read the proof, but can’t seem to ever produce any aside from the fact that a former board member is off his rocker.

I am not looking for any truth in BHA, I read the magazine when it comes, and any emails, which usually are warning of anti public land/public trust legislation. Everything I see points towards what their mission is. Maybe for once, someone can show me evidence to the contrary.

I’m done arguing this point here, it is an echo chamber. Really beating a dead horse. I’ll be happy to look at any subjective evidence rather than factless opinions.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

I’ve tried not to be rude. By being honest. And here’s as honest as I can be.

For the last decade, people have gotten on the BHA’s wagon. Touting their mission statement as fact. Demanding everyone buy the same spoiled lot that they see as a ripe apple. Sweet and delicious.

It’s driven by emotion and the want to believe in something that’s important to them. To the point that your responses on this thread has literally been posted hundreds of times by hundreds of googled eyed BHA members. On this site alone. Some of those posters are no doubt on this thread right now telling you exactly what you don’t want to hear even. Yet, you dismiss it because you refuse to look into it.

No one here is your babysitter or responsible for spelling this out for you. Even so, quite a few people have took the time to explain that you are doing what so many others have done. That’s fallen on deaf ears so far. Because it’s not what you want to hear.

Demanding to be spoon fed the answers to the questions you’ve posed in defense of the BHA have been beaten to death. Over, and over, and over, and over again. You’ve failed to take the slightest inclination in seeing for yourself. You just want everyone to do it for you. Why would they. There’s 6 pages of it so far and it’s not been successful. 16 more isn’t going to do it unless you produce it for yourself.

I’m not your school boy or your teacher. You won’t listen to me no more than you’ve listened to anyone else. The only thing you’ll believe is what you see. So, do a SEARCH. Search here on this site. Search Google. Then read till your brain screams stop.

Or, do what a hundred other lovesick groupies have done. Sell out based on a fools tale. To only realize later you’ve been dubbed.

The choice is yours. But, don’t fool yourself or be a fool. Simply type into the closest search engine. It’ll save you sone typing. And, if you truly want to see what you claim you do, you’ll have your answers. And, you won’t have to depend on what people tell you anymore.

Skepticism solved.

 

[Rifleman86]

I’ve also found it interesting that Rinella has quietly backed away from BHA in the recent years. On one of his recent podcasts you could tell he had been sorta red pilled. It was the most political I’d ever seen him venture.

Say what you want about the man, but he’s not dumb and undoubtedly a passionate outdoorsman. His absence from the organization after being heavily involved for a while is telling.

 

[Mag_7s]

I’ve also found it interesting that Rinella has quietly backed away from BHA in the recent years. On one of his recent podcasts you could tell he had been sorta red pilled. It was the most political I’d ever seen him venture.

Say what you want about the man, but he’s not dumb and undoubtedly a passionate outdoorsman. His absence from the organization after being heavily involved for a while is telling.

I thought I saw somewhere that the Cherrin Group owns the controlling stake in Meateater. Any validity to this?

 

[MattB]

Colorado Wolf Statement

Backcountry Hunters & Anglers is the voice for our wild public lands, waters and wildlife.

www.backcountryhunters.org

You mean this statement about how they don’t support it?

Please tell us, what part of that position statement indicates BHA does not support wolf reintroduction in CO? It explicitly states that BHA does not support ballot box biology, but the recommendations imply tacit support for wolves as they largely seeks to mitigate their impact rather than taking a clear stance against the reintroduction plan.

 

[Tmac]

Please tell us, what part of that position statement indicates BHA does not support wolf reintroduction in CO? It explicitly states that BHA does not support ballot box biology, but the recommendations imply tacit support for wolves as they largely seeks to mitigate their impact rather than taking a clear stance against the reintroduction plan.

I read it the same way. Nowhere does it take a position against reintroduction. It basically says we think it is inevitable, so here are some things we ought to do to prepare for wolves.

 

[grainhog]

Never heard from them unless they wanted money. I spoke with someone else about it and they basically told me they had all the help they needed but it was the same people in every picture.

Huh. That's too bad. I was in the woods building beaver dam analogs in a grazed out drainage with 20 other people the same week I first joined, and have had to turn down more offers than I accept.

 

[mtmiller]

I’ve also found it interesting that Rinella has quietly backed away from BHA in the recent years.

Zero presence in Missoula this weekend.

 

[Spoonbill]

This is a pretty good podcast that touches on different points people have made in this thread. Former BHA employee who helped grow BHA and explaining why he left.

Campfire Conversations 28: Ty Stubblefield on Why He Left BHA, Archery Elk, Musings on Apex Predators in 2022 & Bison Ranching

This one is going to ruffle some feathers, but you know I really don't give a crap. Neither does my good friend Ty Stubblefield. That's why I respect the man, he calls it like it is regardless of who it offends. On this episode of Campfire Conversations, Ty shares exactly why he soured on his

lonestaroutdoorshow.com

 

[WV Mountaineer]

It’s almost funny. But it isn’t. SCI has made this so easy to do. Because they do what they say. Work to protect hunting.

The NPS is considering stopping some hunting on almost 20 million acres.

ParkPlanning - Revisiting Sport Hunting and Trapping on National Park System Preserves in Alaska

parkplanning.nps.gov

You can comment at the link below to show your opposition.

OPPOSE Restrictions on Hunting and Trapping in Alaska!

act.safariclub.org

I guess the BHA is asleep. I may be wrong bc as I stopped looking on their site for actions like the one above. A long time ago. When I saw it was fruitless.

Anyways, click the sci link and do your part.

 

[Fartrell Cluggins]

Up until about a month ago, I had never heard of BHA. I did a little digging in and here's what I came up with. They do not answer questions on their Facebook page. When I researched the politicians that they are partnering with, in all cases, those politicians were democrats. They seem to like craft beer.

Overall, I was left with an impression that I cannot quite quantify, but they didn't put off a good vibe. There is an inexplicable character of phoniness to them.

 

[ODB]

I see your point, I would argue that improving access positively affects everyone; hunters, anglers, hikers, bikers, etc. I would also argue many off the access issues I have seen them working on would probably be utilized more by hunters than any other user group.

I guess I appreciate them for who they are, and if they took Hunters and Angler out of the name, and still fought for public land and access, I would still appreciate them, because either way they are still helping.

I would be happy to see any literature or n BHA officials who are actively doing things or making deals to hurt hunting. I keep hearing about it, but no one ever seems to come up with the proof. Is abuse a joke? Sure, but I am not going to get my panties in a bunch about a past board member who came out as a bit nuts. I still shoot my Kimber after all, and I don’t see anyone attacking them for having been a past employer.

I wonder what the response would be if the hiking and biking orgs donated money to RMEF or other 2A org because after all, the members of those orgs have a common interest in using public lands and we need to support orgs who have a commonality, even if a slim one.

I don’t think it would work in that direction. Which is why I think the criticism is valid.

 

[ODB]

BHA says: “We are obligated as an organization committed to hunters and anglers to advance sound stewardship policies that are guided by science over politics, emotion, and conjecture.”

Emotion is the primary driver of their methods. Anyone who has more than a 3rd-grader’s understanding of rhetoric understands this.

 

[Stache Attack]

Let's revisit the logical and objective reasons why there is so much hate for BHA on this forum. Seriously, what are they?

They work for public access to public lands and water as well as conservation of those lands and waters. That's their mission and they get quite a bit of that done.

Jet boat ban in MT started it for me years ago, what they support, and who supports them continues my animosity. How much public have they protected honestly? I think they coat tail better organizations then claim as their own win. I have not seen any benefiting projects in MT, I would rather work with private land owners, NRCS, and FWP when they ask for help then drink beer in Missoula with out of staters. I’ll go to the local bar and hangout with the new biologist and get to go show him I think antelope should be counted.

 

[TSAMP]

I had a 2 hr drive today so for those interested, This starts around the 1 hr mark about BHA. It's painfully slow and reminds me why I hate these kind of podcasts, but I digress.

Never heard of either person here and no real bombshells that haven't been discussed already. However Ty seems to be a sincere person and for those who'd rather hear it from the horses mouth it may be worth a listen.

Campfire Conversations 28: Ty Stubblefield on Why He Left BHA, Archery Elk, Musings on Apex Predators in 2022 & Bison Ranching

This one is going to ruffle some feathers, but you know I really don't give a crap. Neither does my good friend Ty Stubblefield. That's why I respect the man, he calls it like it is regardless of who it offends. On this episode of Campfire Conversations, Ty shares exactly why he soured on his

lonestaroutdoorshow.com

 

[grainhog]

The NPS is considering stopping some hunting on almost 20 million acres.

ParkPlanning - Revisiting Sport Hunting and Trapping on National Park System Preserves in Alaska

parkplanning.nps.gov

The NPS website you link states the following:

"The NPS proposes to 1. Prohibit methods considered inconsistent with "sport" hunting, including taking big game while the animal is swimming, taking wildlife from a motorboat, taking wolves and coyotes (including pups) during their denning period (May 1-August 9), and taking cubs or female bears with cubs; 2. Prohibit bear baiting in the preserves for "sport" hunting; 3. Prohibit predator control or predator reduction on the preserves. The NPS would therefore not allow harvest practices and activities or management actions that involve predator reduction efforts and associated natural ecological processes to increase harvest of ungulates; and 4. Revise the definition of "trapping" in 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 13 to clarify that trapping only includes activities that use a "trap" as that term is defined in 36 CFR Part 13."

If you're not a subsistence hunter, and you need 1 or 2 above to kill animals successfully in Alaska, than in my opinion you're not a hunter, and you should stay at home and shoot whitetails off your grain feeder. 3 has to do with sanctioned broad scale predator reduction, not hunting.

I'm skeptical of BHA's incessant use of corporate marketing tactics to solicit money from their members. However, they've also been in the trenches opposing some of the abysmally pathetic recommendations that emerged from the MT Elk Management Citizen Advisory Group (e.g. choose your weapon). I was on the sounding board, and the CAG recommendations read like they were written by remedial 6th graders whose dads are outfitters.

BHA also sends useful emails with "take action" buttons that make it much easier to submit public comments about these sorry bills from the current legislative session to representatives--including bills related to both hunting and access. I live nearby and am not going to the rendezvous because it's not my crowd, but I'd argue that even in the context of my skepticism they do good work.

Now that I can say I've addressed the predominant topic of the thread: framing the AK NPS proposal above as some major attack on hunting is disingenuous at best, and reads more like paranoid fear mongering.

 

[DenverCountryBoy]

 

[Billinsd]

I'm cleaning cobwebs out of the garage.

 

[Marbles]

Do a Google search. It’ll be easier than repeatedly saying you disagree with everyone. Plus, you’ll remember it if you do the work.

I’m not being mean but, it’s obvious you have a very limited exposure to their proclamations and opinions of the past. Spend a fraction of the time looking for what you claim to want to see. A search on this site alone will give you three days worth of reading.

I’ve tried not to be rude. By being honest. And here’s as honest as I can be.

For the last decade, people have gotten on the BHA’s wagon. Touting their mission statement as fact. Demanding everyone buy the same spoiled lot that they see as a ripe apple. Sweet and delicious.

It’s driven by emotion and the want to believe in something that’s important to them. To the point that your responses on this thread has literally been posted hundreds of times by hundreds of googled eyed BHA members. On this site alone. Some of those posters are no doubt on this thread right now telling you exactly what you don’t want to hear even. Yet, you dismiss it because you refuse to look into it.

No one here is your babysitter or responsible for spelling this out for you. Even so, quite a few people have took the time to explain that you are doing what so many others have done. That’s fallen on deaf ears so far. Because it’s not what you want to hear.

Demanding to be spoon fed the answers to the questions you’ve posed in defense of the BHA have been beaten to death. Over, and over, and over, and over again. You’ve failed to take the slightest inclination in seeing for yourself. You just want everyone to do it for you. Why would they. There’s 6 pages of it so far and it’s not been successful. 16 more isn’t going to do it unless you produce it for yourself.

I’m not your school boy or your teacher. You won’t listen to me no more than you’ve listened to anyone else. The only thing you’ll believe is what you see. So, do a SEARCH. Search here on this site. Search Google. Then read till your brain screams stop.

Or, do what a hundred other lovesick groupies have done. Sell out based on a fools tale. To only realize later you’ve been dubbed.

The choice is yours. But, don’t fool yourself or be a fool. Simply type into the closest search engine. It’ll save you sone typing. And, if you truly want to see what you claim you do, you’ll have your answers. And, you won’t have to depend on what people tell you anymore.

Skepticism solved.

Refusing to support ones on position with evidence and demanding anyone who does not agree with your position find your evidence is....well there is no nice way to describe it, but like you, I will try to be nice.

How about you provide the links from that search? I tried, I found nothing to support your position, other than rants on forums and the belief that supporting Republicans is synonymous with everything good in the world and anyone who does not is bad. From what your oracle on high, the mighty search engine, shows me BHA has similar positions regarding "renewable" energy development and mining and oil/gas leasing on public land (x one unsupported argument from this thread). I think the king has no close.

By the way, I read all 6 pages, if you consider that to be proof you are right, then you are as intellectually honest as the Squad and cut from the same cloth. The inability to "spoon feed" someone suggests that you either cannot support your position, or that you care about the position too little to put in a little work. If it is the latter, than by the stands set in this thread (standards you endorsed) you are anti-2a and anti-hunting.

I'll save you some typing. I have never been a member of BHA, never given them money, and other than when reading threads like these, never read anything they have written. However, it is pretty clear on this thread who drinks the Kool-Aid.

@CorbLand is one of the few people who makes an argument that is persuasive. I was not considering joining BHA, but he certainly has made it less likely that I would consider it.