BHA seems “all-in” with Biden

[otolith]

What groups actually go out in the field to enhance habitat be it for hunting or fishing? I'll put up with a political leaning if they can actually do good on the lands I use. Out East only the National Forest lands are really open. All else seems to be privately owned hence you get a lot of land leasing to hunters. I remember Ted Turner had a huge Ranch in New Mexico, don't know if he still does, but he was militant about anybody getting on his property. If given an opportunity some billionaire would buy up any public property in Montana, Wyoming, etc to create their own personal paradise and shut the gate on anybody else getting to enjoy it's beauty and recreation. Well, at least in or near the mountains of whatever range you chose.

 

[Hoodie]

At several points in this thread I saw guys saying they’re more worried about public land access than the 2nd amendment, and that we will still be able to hunt with bows if they take our guns. So here’s a question for anybody that believes that. Do you think that when the democrat party succeeds in taking away private gun ownership there will still be any hunting allowed?

Personally I think that anytime any major push is made by the republicans to take away public lands, enough of their constituents will rise up and make their voices heard to make that issue a non starter however there seems to be real momentum to take more and more of our freedoms surrounding guns off of the table.

As for BHA, I’ve heard enough out of that group to know I want to keep my distance


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The democrats in my state have been trying to remove meat from the menu in schools. Heck yeah they’ll let you keep hunting after they take your guns.

I'll take a stab at this.

The support for hunting for meat is close to 80% in this country. Which is actually the highest it's ever been at a national level.

Understanding Hunting Today

Andrea Criscione and Mark Duda examine hunting practices of the past while exploring the discrepancy between support of and participation in hunting.

www.humansandnature.org

New study puts the crosshairs on American attitudes about hunting

Attitudes about hunting examined in new study

www.post-gazette.com

The second link cites research showing that public support for hunting increased 7% between 1995 and 2019. I'm not surprised by that at all. It certainly seems like plenty of people who didn't grow up in hunting households are getting into it lately.

The reason that democrats aren't going to try to take your hunting away is because they do it too. I mean a good portion of this thread was guys complaining about the huge influx of microbrew sipping hipsters into hunting.

You can't do that and then also act like people with your political beliefs have some sort of monopoly on shooting animals.

Now take a look at the percentage of Americans who tend to support the idea of an assault weapons ban. Look at multiple polls and see the trend. Regardless of how you feel about either issue it'll be clear why you've heard plenty of politicians float the idea of an assault weapons ban, but basically none seriously lobbying to ban hunting.

All those liberal hipster, foodie "adult-onset" hunters are pretty good political insurance.

TL/DR: Hunting isn't in as precarious a position as assault rifles are because the general public likes it more.

 

[Hoodie]

The whole idea that something like an assault weapons ban might lead to a reduction in hunting opportunity is a weak use of the slippery slope argument.

It's generally considered a logical fallacy.

Slippery slope argument | Fallacy, Causality & Argumentation | Britannica

Slippery slope argument, in logic, the fallacy of arguing that a certain course of action is undesirable or that a certain proposition is implausible because it leads to an undesirable or implausible conclusion via a series of tenuously connected premises, each of which is understood to lead,

www.britannica.com

You're saying that if assault weapons get banned that it will somehow plausibly lead to the end of hunting. Those two things aren't even related in a lot of the general public's minds.

It's like saying "Well if we allow them to enforce speed limits who's to say they won't just eventually ban driving?"

 

[Andrew12gauge]

The whole idea that something like an assault weapons ban might lead to a reduction in hunting opportunity is a weak use of the slippery slope argument.

It's generally considered a logical fallacy.

Slippery slope argument | Fallacy, Causality & Argumentation | Britannica

Slippery slope argument, in logic, the fallacy of arguing that a certain course of action is undesirable or that a certain proposition is implausible because it leads to an undesirable or implausible conclusion via a series of tenuously connected premises, each of which is understood to lead,

www.britannica.com

You're saying that if assault weapons get banned that it will somehow plausibly lead to the end of hunting. Those two things aren't even related in a lot of the general public's minds.

It's like saying "Well if we allow them to enforce speed limits who's to say they won't just eventually ban driving?"

As soon as “assault weapons” go, then it will be handguns, then it will be “sniper rifles”(ie bolt action hunting rifles), then shotguns. And at that point it won’t matter how much public land we have because you and I won’t be able to step foot in it much less go hunting on it

A socialist regime taking away our weapons is not doing it for the good of the people, they’re only doing it to be able to control us


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Andrew12gauge]

And since I know you’re now going to say they’ll never ban bolt action rifles, ask our neighbors to the north how many bolt action rifles are already prohibited in their country


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hoodie]

As soon as “assault weapons” go, then it will be handguns, then it will be “sniper rifles”(ie bolt action hunting rifles), then shotguns. And at that point it won’t matter how much public land we have because you and I won’t be able to step foot in it much less go hunting on it

This is literally the slippery slope I mentioned.

Here's a better way of me explaining what I'm saying:

Let's say 55%-65% of Americans support an assault weapons ban. What percentage of them do you think thinks it's okay to own a handgun? How about a bolt-action rifle?

If what you said in your post is true, it means that there are only two kinds of people in America. People who think you should be able to own an AR, and people who don't think you should be able to own any guns at all.

That clearly isn't the case.

It's totally possible to concealed carry every day and at the same time not think a private citizen should be able to buy an AR. It's totally possible to be a lifelong hunter who owns a safe full of bolt guns and think a private citizen should have to obtain some sort of permit to own an AR.

I'm not saying those opinions are right or wrong one way or the other. What I'm saying is that it's possible that that ARs could be banned in this country and hunting would be fine.

I mean, AR's WERE banned in this country for a while and according to the study I linked above hunting got more popular. I don't think the studies done after the ban in the 90s showed that it had any real impact on reducing gun violence, but unfortunately people vote with their feelings.

Thankfully, people feel pretty good about hunting.

 

[Andrew12gauge]

[QUOTE="Hoodie, post: 1919087, member:

I mean, AR's WERE banned in this country for a while and according to the study I linked above hunting got more popular. I don't think the studies done after the ban in the 90s showed that it had any real impact on reducing gun violence, but unfortunately people vote with their feelings.

[/QUOTE]

So when they get their new assault weapons ban and it once again does nothing to curb gun violence where do they go next?

It was never illegal to own an AR-15 only to manufacture and sell them anyway

Either way we’ve seen this play out in many other countries, they never stop with “assault weapons” those are just a convenient 1st domino because they look scary.

And public sentiment about hunting doesn’t matter, they’ll essentially play out the same game plan for hunting, start with African “trophy hunting”, then move on to bears and mountain lions and continue to chip away, because as they take a little more the next step never looks all that unreasonable. Which is exactly why I will never get into bed with an organization such as BHA who is in bed with so many corporations and organizations who are staunchly anti-hunting and continually throw their money and support behind politics around hunting that go against my views and ethics


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hoodie]

And since I know you’re now going to say they’ll never ban bolt action rifles, ask our neighbors to the north how many bolt action rifles are already prohibited in their country


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think there are legitimate threats to hunting. I'm not sure that an "assault weapons" ban is one of them. Like I said, we already had one. According to the research it wasn't very effective. But while it was in effect general support for hunting increased. Those are just facts.

To keep it at least a little related to the topic of the thread: I don't think BHA is the greatest organization in the world. I do think you can probably donate money to them without worrying that your money is going to support some socialist conspiracy to end hunting. If you don't like them for other reasons (and it seems like there are a few reasonable ones), no big deal.

So far the only legitimate knock against the organization as far as I'm concerned is the ballot box biology. Not that that's insignificant by any means.

I already mentioned the work they've done in my state that I've personally benefited from.

Could they suck less? Probably. Are they trying to take your guns? Probably not.

 

[Andrew12gauge]

I think there are legitimate threats to hunting. I'm not sure that an "assault weapons" ban is one of them. Like I said, we already had one. According to the research it wasn't very effective. But while it was in effect general support for hunting increased. Those are just facts.

To keep it at least a little related to the topic of the thread: I don't think BHA is the greatest organization in the world. I do think you can probably donate money to them without worrying that your money is going to support some socialist conspiracy to end hunting. If you don't like them for other reasons (and it seems like there are a few reasonable ones), no big deal.

So far the only legitimate knock against the organization as far as I'm concerned is the ballot box biology. Not that that's insignificant by any means.

I already mentioned the work they've done in my state that I've personally benefited from.

Could they suck less? Probably. Are they trying to take your guns? Probably not.

I guess my point is I’d rather give my money to organizations who align with me more on both firearms and public lands rather than an organization who really only seems to care about 1 of those things. I find most conservation organizations to be pretty down the middle but BHA just always seems to swing left and I’ve not seen a democrat candidate who doesn’t plan in some way to infringe on our 2nd amendment rights


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hoodie]

I guess my point is I’d rather give my money to organizations who align with me more on both firearms and public lands rather than an organization who really only seems to care about 1 of those things. I find most conservation organizations to be pretty down the middle but BHA just always seems to swing left and I’ve not seen a democrat candidate who doesn’t plan in some way to infringe on our 2nd amendment rights


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think that's fair. BHA definitely leans further left than RMEF. No argument there. Although from their perspective "leaning left" might be viewed more as an attempt to work across the aisle.

It certainly does seem like RMEF gets more done. And that alone should be enough to nudge someone in that direction. That said, I can't complain about my state BHA chapter. They've done enough to earn my $35 too I think. Land Tawney's moustache or whatever is less of a concern for me.

 

[Marbles]

Just food for though, an organization that only has ties to one political party seldom gets legislation through in Washington because they cannot find bipartisan sponsorship. I will take an organization that can get things done over one that is ideologically pure.

Ideological puritanism tends to lead to bad things every time it comes up in history. The Inquisition, communism, Nazi Germany, Pol Pot, to list a few instances that are clear cut. This country was founded on compromises and intentional divisions to avoid such things. While there are things that should not be compromised, too many people compromise the things that really matter while holding the line on issues that don't.

Sometimes, one has to pick where and when to expend their powder. Don't shoot if the target is out of range. Don't expend political capital if success is unlikely. It can be a good strategy to encourage your opponents to waste their political capital, sometime ideological puritanism does that from within.

Ideological purity is the social equivalent of ivory tower philosophy. Both have a place and value, but trying to interact with the real world based on them rarely works as reality is messy.

That said, I don't know much about the organizations being discussed. Just some general observations.

 

[orionsbrother]

I can't speak to all the accusations in those links.

I can definitely address one.

The piece by the American Lands Council stated that BHA was spreading misinformation that the transfer of federal lands to state ownership could result in those lands being sold off.

I wouldn't call that misinformation. I live in Oregon. There have been several serious efforts in the past decade to sell off state forest lands with good hunting because they "weren't profitable." Look into the effort to stop the sale of the Elliot State Forest. There haven't been any major pushes to sell federal lands.

A quick google search regarding the people behind the "American Lands Council" had this pop up.

The American Lands Council - Money Trails

moneytrails.org

If this is who people are supposed to send their money to instead of BHA, I hope like hell they're doing their research. This whole organization is dedicated to the the transfer of federal lands to the states.

Ken Ivory (the founder) literally sponsored an act called the "Transfer of Public Lands Act" in 2012.

If BHA really isn't what they seem, at least they're subtle. This stuff is Busch league.

This is not binary. The fact that I choose to not support BHA does not mean that I advocate for all public lands to be sold off, paved over and built up with strip malls.

I may be going out on a ledge here, but I assume that very few guys here would support wholesale transfer of public land either.

And... for the record, my personal animosity for flat-brimmed hats, especially with tucked ears, is coincidental to my opinion regarding BHA, not causal.

 

[Ozarkansas]

What groups actually go out in the field to enhance habitat be it for hunting or fishing? I'll put up with a political leaning if they can actually do good on the lands I use. Out East only the National Forest lands are really open. All else seems to be privately owned hence you get a lot of land leasing to hunters.

I think that's why as an Easterner I tend to focus more on good habitat improvement/conservation groups (Nature Conservancy, Northwest Arkansas Land Trust, NWTF, Quail Forever) without really caring as much about the 2A or predator issues. Nobody is going to get an assault weapons ban passed in Arkansas, but they did nearly sell off 2% of our state-owned public land in one go. If I lived in Colorado my priorities might be different.

 

[BBob]

I mean, AR's WERE banned in this country for a while

It was never illegal to own an AR-15 only to manufacture and sell them anyway

Wait what are you guys talking about? Are you talking about the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994? Plenty of AR’s were produced and purchased during this 10 yr period. AR’s were never banned, only a certain combination of features were allowed/not allowed during this time.

 

[Lando]

There are already dozens if not hundreds of conservation based organizations out there, any spending on that issue by bha is a drop in the bucket of noise for that cause, leave it to heavy hitters like the nature conservancy and whatnot. They are competing for access to the powers that be and the fact is that there are a ton of conservation groups that have more to offer those people than bha does. That money could be used way more effectively towards their initial mission statement of opening up access to public lands.

As far as I can tell, rmef opened up more acres to hunters than bha did during the same time period.

The nature conservancy recently purchased miles of river habitat in Arizona and completely closed it to the public for no reason. My kids and I used to love going there to skim board, catch tadpoles etc. all summer long. It was an oasis in the desert, where so few options exist. Now they have posted no trespassing signs and AZ Game Wardens patrol it and write tickets. The nature conservancy and the Sierra Club want all of your money, but don't want you to actually be able to use the land you helped purchase and conserve.

 

[Ozarkansas]

The nature conservancy recently purchased miles of river habitat in Arizona and completely closed it to the public for no reason. My kids and I used to love going there to skim board, catch tadpoles etc. all summer long. It was an oasis in the desert, where so few options exist. Now they have posted no trespassing signs and AZ Game Wardens patrol it and write tickets. The nature conservancy and the Sierra Club want all of your money, but don't want you to actually be able to use the land you helped purchase and conserve.

The nature conservancy has lots of their preserves open to the public, they’re usually only closed if they’re doing habitat improvement, traffic is heavy enough to degrade the habitat, or the owners don’t want people on it (because they often don’t actually own the land they just have an easement preserving it). It sucks that they closed that section to visitors but I bet they had a pretty good reason if you asked them.

at least that’s been my experience with them

 

[Newtosavage]

This is literally the slippery slope I mentioned.

Here's a better way of me explaining what I'm saying:

Let's say 55%-65% of Americans support an assault weapons ban. What percentage of them do you think thinks it's okay to own a handgun? How about a bolt-action rifle?

If what you said in your post is true, it means that there are only two kinds of people in America. People who think you should be able to own an AR, and people who don't think you should be able to own any guns at all.

That clearly isn't the case.

It's totally possible to concealed carry every day and at the same time not think a private citizen should be able to buy an AR. It's totally possible to be a lifelong hunter who owns a safe full of bolt guns and think a private citizen should have to obtain some sort of permit to own an AR.

I'm not saying those opinions are right or wrong one way or the other. What I'm saying is that it's possible that that ARs could be banned in this country and hunting would be fine.

I mean, AR's WERE banned in this country for a while and according to the study I linked above hunting got more popular. I don't think the studies done after the ban in the 90s showed that it had any real impact on reducing gun violence, but unfortunately people vote with their feelings.

Thankfully, people feel pretty good about hunting.

Stop making so much sense. It's confusing some members here.

 

[Newtosavage]

The nature conservancy has lots of their preserves open to the public, they’re usually only closed if they’re doing habitat improvement, traffic is heavy enough to degrade the habitat, or the owners don’t want people on it (because they often don’t actually own the land they just have an easement preserving it). It sucks that they closed that section to visitors but I bet they had a pretty good reason if you asked them.

at least that’s been my experience with them

Actually, most TNC lands are closed or are open only at very limited times, or only to "certain" people (big donors, especially). They have taken a lot of heat over this in recent years and their fundraising has suffered because of it.

Playing devil's advocate for a moment though... why would we be that upset when a non-profit with a true conservation mission has trouble paying enough staff to allow them to open their properties to the public? Yes, it requires staff to open those properties safely and in some cases, legally. Not to mention the concerns TNC has with lots of visitors interfering with the purpose of the acquisition in the first place (conservation).

If you don't like the way a non-profit manages their property, feel free to start your own non-profit. People do it all the time. Look up the story of the American Land Conservancy, for example. One woman started that non-profit that resulted in the acquisition and protection of thousands of acres of land, with $100K out of her own bank account.

 

[TomJoad]

The nature conservancy recently purchased miles of river habitat in Arizona and completely closed it to the public for no reason. My kids and I used to love going there to skim board, catch tadpoles etc. all summer long. It was an oasis in the desert, where so few options exist. Now they have posted no trespassing signs and AZ Game Wardens patrol it and write tickets. The nature conservancy and the Sierra Club want all of your money, but don't want you to actually be able to use the land you helped purchase and conserve.

Have you called them to discuss this area why they closed it and asked them for access? I would guess it could be similar to gated Nature conservancy land near our cabin in the Bighorns: Gated to reduce traffic and damage to a very environmentally sensitive area but the public can still get access. You call them and tell them the day you want to go and they send you a code for the gate. As such whenever we go to their managed property in WY there is not another sole there and the experience is amazing.

 

[Lando]

The nature conservancy has lots of their preserves open to the public, they’re usually only closed if they’re doing habitat improvement, traffic is heavy enough to degrade the habitat, or the owners don’t want people on it (because they often don’t actually own the land they just have an easement preserving it). It sucks that they closed that section to visitors but I bet they had a pretty good reason if you asked them.

at least that’s been my experience with them

If they have a reason, it would be nice to let us know what it is. I've spoken with the game wardens they are pushing into enforcing the no trespassing and they don't know why either. Seems to me if there were a biological reason that Game and Fish would know about it.