BHA seems “all-in” with Biden

[Ozarkansas]

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.

Which preserve is it?
it looks like two of their preserves are temporarily closed but most of theirs are listed as open Here is a map of the areas they own or manage in Arizona

 

[Scooter90254]

OK, For those of you who don't know Land is a Ultra woke lib. He just is. He does try hard to hide it but he is what he is. But... he is also very much in favor of hunting and conservation.

That being said, what has BHA done that has in anyway been negative? Like actually done not your opinion. You are not going to agree with every single item a group takes up. Your silly if that's your expectation.

If you rolled into our local pint night and called that group of guys anti hunting it would be laughable.

Remember these groups are what their members are. BHA is as hardcore of a hunting group as they get.

Show we where they donated to HSUS and I'll flip that script in a hurry.

Maybe call for Land to step down.

 

[Lando]

Which preserve is it?
it looks like two of their preserves are temporarily closed but most of theirs are listed as open Here is a map of the areas they own or manage in Arizona

It's the Hassayampa, which they list as open, but only the part without water is open to the public and is managed by the County for Nature Conservancy with an entrance fee. The part of the River that has water, that people like me have been keeping as a treasured secret for years, is the area they closed. I had to use ONx to find out that it was the Nature Conservancy who owned it and was closing it to the public. Game and Fish could not or would not say.

 

[Hoodie]

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.

To be clear, I definitely don't think anything in real life is black or white like that. I've pretty much been consistently arguing against that sort of all or nothing thinking.

And I don't think you're going out on a ledge at all. I'd go further and bet that there probably isn't a single guy here who would support that.

The post you quoted was more so me saying that the American Lands Council is perhaps not the best horse to back if you care about your hunting access.

There's a metric shit-ton of misinformation being circulated these days. It's really common for entities who are hostile to public lands to act like it's no big deal for federal lands to be transferred to state management.

I already mentioned that, at least in my state, that particular party line has been proven false repeatedly.

 

[Hoodie]

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.

You're right about that. I was mistaken.

I do think it's interesting to note that legislation pertaining to assault weapons was passed, and it never progressed to an all-out ban.

If the slippery slope argument held water, the initial legislation should have just been a way to get the ball rolling. It should have paved the way towards an actual ban. Then handguns should have gone. Then, finally hunting weapons. Or at least things should have trended that way.

If anything it serves as evidence against the slippery slope argument.

I think lots of gun legislation is either stupid conceptually or poorly implemented.

All I'm saying is that the slippery slope argument is weak. It is totally possible to allow some amount of a given thing, or to allow a given thing only with certain qualifications, and not totally ban the thing in all its forms.

In the 90s there were several foreign cars that it was illegal to own in the US because they didn't meet emission standards. Somehow, crazy though it may be, that didn't lead to a complete ban on the automobile in the US.

I've yet to hear anybody come close to explaining why an assault weapons ban will ultimately end up with me having to give up my bolt guns. So unless an organization is actively supporting people who are peddling extreme ideas like a total ban on private gun ownership, I'm not too concerned.

Generally conservation orgs are interested in, you know, conservation.

Except the American Lands Council. Those dudes are clearly turds.

 

[Andrew12gauge]

I've yet to hear anybody come close to explaining why an assault weapons ban will ultimately end up with me having to give up my bolt guns. So unless an organization is actively supporting people who are peddling extreme ideas like a total ban on private gun ownership, I'm not too concerned.

Australia and Britain come to mind as good examples, we are currently seeing Canada inch ever closer to those same restrictions


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hoodie]

I'm fully aware that those two countries have stricter gun laws than the US.

But I'm like 90% sure you can still hunt with a bolt gun there. I'm sure if I'm wrong someone will be along to correct me.

Either way, my main point here despite these incessant gun-related tangents, is that I don't see BHA being a threat to guns. That's all.

BHA being the topic of the thread.

 

[HeavilyArmedHIppie]

I’d rather be forced to hunt with nothing but traditional archery on public land than lose all public land.

 

[KurtR]

I’d rather be forced to hunt with nothing but traditional archery on public land than lose all public land.

pretty hard to shoot ducks and pheasants with a bow. there is way more to hunting than going to the forest one week out of the year

 

[WCB]

I’d rather be forced to hunt with nothing but traditional archery on public land than lose all public land.

I'd rather not be forced to do anything....especially be unarmed. The 2nd not about hunting.

 

[seldomseensmith]

I'd rather not be forced to do anything....especially be unarmed. The 2nd not about hunting.

With all due respect, then why is it used in every stinking arguement that comes up about hunting? Don't answer that. It was rhetorical. I would be happy to keep hunting out of 2nd amend convos if you all would keep 2nd ammend out of hunting convos. Deal? Ha.

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

 

[gabenzeke]

With all due respect, then why is it used in every stinking arguement that comes up about hunting? Don't answer that. It was rhetorical. I would be happy to keep hunting out of 2nd amend convos if you all would keep 2nd ammend out of hunting convos. Deal? Ha.

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

Because one of the side benefits of the 2a is being able to use guns for hunting. It's not about hunting, but as hunters, we benefit from the second amendment

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[def90]

You're right about that. I was mistaken.

I do think it's interesting to note that legislation pertaining to assault weapons was passed, and it never progressed to an all-out ban.

If the slippery slope argument held water, the initial legislation should have just been a way to get the ball rolling. It should have paved the way towards an actual ban. Then handguns should have gone. Then, finally hunting weapons. Or at least things should have trended that way.

If anything it serves as evidence against the slippery slope argument.

I think lots of gun legislation is either stupid conceptually or poorly implemented.

All I'm saying is that the slippery slope argument is weak. It is totally possible to allow some amount of a given thing, or to allow a given thing only with certain qualifications, and not totally ban the thing in all its forms.

In the 90s there were several foreign cars that it was illegal to own in the US because they didn't meet emission standards. Somehow, crazy though it may be, that didn't lead to a complete ban on the automobile in the US.

I've yet to hear anybody come close to explaining why an assault weapons ban will ultimately end up with me having to give up my bolt guns. So unless an organization is actively supporting people who are peddling extreme ideas like a total ban on private gun ownership, I'm not too concerned.

Generally conservation orgs are interested in, you know, conservation.

Except the American Lands Council. Those dudes are clearly turds.

The reason why we don’t have a current ban is because they wrote a “sunset” clause in to the 94 AWB that required for congress to repass it at a certain date in time. It just happened to be that Republicans controlled congress at the time that the sunset clause came to be. Pres Bush said that he would sign a renewed ban if it was put on his desk, congress didn’t give him a chance. If a new AWB ban was passed by congress you can guarantee that this time they wouldn’t allow a sunset clause be added.

 

[Billinsd]

Because one of the side benefits of the 2a is being able to use guns for hunting. It's not about hunting, but as hunters, we benefit from the second amendment

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

The 2nd Amendment helps safeguard all the others. Many are missing the point or I am We don't or I don't expect BHA to PROMOTE the 2nd Amendment, even hunting. Their mission is lobbying for public lands for hunters and anglers. We/I ABHOR BHA rubbing elbows, working with, looking at, you name it groups that ACTIVELY WORK AGAINST the 2nd Amendment and/or hunting in anyway. Peace out Bill

 

[seldomseensmith]

Because one of the side benefits of the 2a is being able to use guns for hunting. It's not about hunting, but as hunters, we benefit from the second amendment

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Yeah I get it.


Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

 

[Hoodie]

The reason why we don’t have a current ban is because they wrote a “sunset” clause in to the 94 AWB that required for congress to repass it at a certain date in time. It just happened to be that Republicans controlled congress at the time that the sunset clause came to be. Pres Bush said that he would sign a renewed ban if it was put on his desk, congress didn’t give him a chance. If a new AWB ban was passed by congress you can guarantee that this time they wouldn’t allow a sunset clause be added.

I think you're probably right about that last part. I'm surprised to hear Bush said that. The climate's definitely shifted on the conservative side since then. I'd think it would be political suicide for a Republican to say something like that these days.

Even if there wasn't a sunset clause (and like you said, they're almost certainly wouldn't be) that still doesn't mean that any legislation passed specifically targeting "assault rifles" would lead to further legislation being passed that would affect, say, bolt action rifles or gun hunting in general.

I get that there are guys who hunt with ARs. I also get that liberal politicians who don't know anything about firearms often have really loose definitions for what qualifies as an "assault rifle."

That doesn't mean that in real life there's a plan to end hunting starting with an AWB. That's my whole argument. Like others have mentioned, I don't think the two things are really connected in the general public's mind.

 

[Andrew12gauge]

The 2nd Amendment helps safeguard all the others. Many are missing the point or I am We don't or I don't expect BHA to PROMOTE the 2nd Amendment, even hunting. Their mission is lobbying for public lands for hunters and anglers. We/I ABHOR BHA rubbing elbows, working with, looking at, you name it groups that ACTIVELY WORK AGAINST the 2nd Amendment and/or hunting in anyway. Peace out Bill

All of this right here


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[HeavilyArmedHIppie]

I’m kind of sick of the red decoy 2A groups trying to ball hunters in while promoting right wing extremist public land transfer agendas. A lot of these groups are Koch brothers/conservative think tank mouthpieces. They might be good for guns but definitely not good for hunting.

 

[Billinsd]

I’m kind of sick of the red decoy 2A groups trying to ball hunters in while promoting right wing extremist public land transfer agendas.

Transfer of Federal Lands to the States is more of a Libertarian cause. They as I believe it was never intended for the Federal Government to own so much land. The Lousiana Purchase changed everything. There is a spectrum of opinions on the gigantic tracts of forest and blm land. On the extreme end the hardcore Libertarians think they should all be transferred to the state, because that's what the founders planned. On the other hand people like me have been educated by folks on this forum that at least some states will sell the lands and have. I don't want all the Federal lands transfered to the states, which will never happen. I do want the forest circus and blm deregulated and drastically downsized and have there be more mining and development, because I want to drive my cars and heat my homes. Of course there needs to be some regulation of mining, petroleum, and development, but there is far too much now.

 

[Billinsd]

That doesn't mean that in real life there's a plan to end hunting starting with an AWB. That's my whole argument. Like others have mentioned, I don't think the two things are really connected in the general public's mind.

Right the attack on citizens right to own firearms by leftists is not directly connected to the attack against hunting by leftists. If the left can restrict our 2nd Amendment Rights, and they already do, why can't they restrict our hunting privileges? The 2nd Amendment has been drastically restricted by the courts. The 2nd Amendment has a part that says "shall not be infringed upon" Nothing could be clearer than that, yet we are infringed more and more day by day.