BHA seems “all-in” with Biden

[cuerro viejo]

Leopold's works speak for themselves.

If you think all Oil/Gas fields are multi use, then you are clearly blind to reality or at the very least, spun up by the right wing narrative that oil and gas are good and renewables are bad.

I've said it before and I will again. It's stunning that a forum focused on hunting would be populated by so many who insist on defending the very things that have destroyed so much wildlife habitat.

But this entire thread isn't about renewables vs oil/gas. And anyone with a brain can tell that.

You are one that tried to defend solar, by dismissing it presence.

again another spin factor.

I have both producing gas leases and wind turbines. Are you sure you want to continue on the delusional path of not multi- use?

You want to compare wild life photos and usage at well sites and turbine pads to Solar arrays?

I’m not arguing politics, Im arguing facts. You are arguing politics while promoting complete deforestation as environmentally friendly.

Ive gone on RS record defending landowners for signing solar leases, you cant find that ROI ranching and or farming, but im not delusional to its effects on land scape, I see it daily

 

[Newtosavage]

You are one that tried to defend solar, by dismissing it presence.

again another spin factor.

I have both gas leases and wind turbines. Are you sure you want to continue on the delusional path of not multi- use?

You want to compare wild life photos and usage at well sites and turbine pads to Solar arrays?

I’m not arguing politics Im arguing facts.

You're projecting. I never tried to defend solar.

And if you want to compare total impacts of gas/oil and wind to solar, that's a losing argument you've chosen.

They all suck.

Now do you have anything to offer about BHA which is what this thread is actually about?

Ah, nevermind. I can't believe I let myself get sucked into another stupid political thread. Shame on me.

 

[svivian]

Ah, nevermind. I can't believe I let myself get sucked into another stupid political thread. Shame on me.

Yet it is no surprise to anyone else who frequents this forum….

 

[cuerro viejo]

You're projecting. I never tried to defend solar.

And if you want to compare total impacts of gas/oil and wind to solar, that's a losing argument you've chosen.

They all suck.

Now do you have anything to offer about BHA which is what this thread is actually about?

Then get off the internet. By all mean practice what you preach.

Only one making political reference is yourself not me.

 

[william schmaltz]

What is the purpose or reasoning/excuse for closing those areas to R/NR hunting?

"Subsistence" users were claiming there are not enough animals for them. So the federal government closed it down to all but them. Again, the ADFG provided a mountain of data showing populations are doing fine in those areas. In addition, as shown by the ADFG, the take from "non-subsistence hunters" was essentially all matures males and extremely fractional, making the effects of hunting by "outsiders" so remote as to be negligible. (it was 100% political)

 

[CJ19]

The line between politics and what drives conservation forward is indistinguishable. There is simply no point having a conservation forum if the politics of conservation and wildlife management is not on the menu. Ignoring outdoor politics does not result in good outcomes for conservation or hunters . Washington is the prime example and wake up call for many. There was a podcast i listened to where the prominent host and guest were talking about how hunters need to be more interested in how conservation politics are going to impact them as hunters. just keep it between the lines with no name calling.

.

i fully support your ability to post your opinion. I can simply go to another topic or thread or ignore you if I choose to. I disagree with you on a lot of things but isnt that the point of exchanging ideas. fee fees get hurt sometimes, mine included, but I am confident we all will recover just fine. .

 

[Clark33]

Let's see if I understand this logic... Create an organization by and for hunters and anglers who are not just casual hunters and anglers but who are backcountry focused which by definition means they are pretty well informed and dedicated. Then, somehow convince all those hunter and angler members, most of whom have a lot of experience in the western backcountry, to volunteer their time to oppose hunting.

Seems legit.

Most BHA members I know and know of are very new to hunting, BHA had good marketing in the beginning, a lot of talk about bha on rinella’s podcast years back, the same netflix show and podcast most adult on set hunters see first. They got the new “I wanna eat meat but hate commercial livestock practices” people hook line and sinker.

 

[Okhotnik]

Most BHA members I know and know of are very new to hunting, BHA had good marketing in the beginning, a lot of talk about bha on rinella’s podcast years back, the same netflix show and podcast most adult on set hunters see first. They got the new “I wanna eat meat but hate commercial livestock practices” people hook line and sinker.

Its interesting how many people, who grew up hunting and fishing, and practiced conservation as a sportsmen are able to see what a grift BHA is. The typical BHA fan boys cultists were not raised by strong hunting fathers who taught them hunting and fishing, conservation in their youth are those now, because of social media, who entered the entered hunting later life because of the perceived cool factor like vegans. C'mon we have all run across them now in our hunting culture and they are typically insufferable bragging how they are saving wildlife lol


Hence the whole insecure lifestyle brag cult now on social media. BHA members are the Kardahsians of the sportsmen world

 

[cuerro viejo]

regardless who is always defending them on RS, there are bigger and way less controversial Conservation Org leading the way on access. RMEF being one of them.

BHA’s absolutism is said to almost ruined a great landowner compromise in Crazies.

We always see a fire with BHA, but not with RMEF, MF, DSC, SCI, Delta etc. BHA has an obvious public perception problem they need to amend.

 

[tbakke24]

I stand with BHA and always will they do great things!

 

[BBob]

This picture says a lot to me. Two peas in a pod.

 

[fwafwow]

I stand with BHA and always will they do great things!

Bot

 

[chindits]

I haven’t read this thread nor do I intend to.

However, around here the thing I like about BHA is they do on the ground habitat projects without trying to change CPW tag allotments or hunting regulations like another local conservation group. They just work with out the whining. The thing I don’t like about them is they waste time and money on little social get togethers and are always pimping for more money through raffles like RMEF.

 

[whaack]

I was slow on getting annoyed with BHA. Gu as part of me always wants to believe the best about people. No it seems they try to stick their finger in hunters eyes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DigEmUpPro1]

Terrible organization. More worried about climate change and how the antis - view them. Not worried about conservation that results in better hunting and more opportunity.

 

[WRO]

Their last post about closing down artic leases just shows their absolutism..

 

[Sheepeater]

The thing that turns me off the most about BHA is it’s members. BuzzH comes to mind immediately. What a tool.

 

[william schmaltz]

Their last post about closing down artic leases just shows their absolutism..

The ANWR stuff was my final nail in the coffin for BHA a few years ago. When you really know a substantial amount about a single topic and have spent a large amount of time in that area, and then watch an organization distort the facts to align to their preferred message/outcome, you can't help but just assume they must be lying about everything else too. I don't need to see their post to know that it probably has pictures of mountains. Maybe a caribou on a mountain. Probably mentions how great the habitat is and how native food and water resources are somehow now protected.

According to BHA, the 1002 area of ANWR is some sort of mountainous paradise with native hunters everywhere and critical sheep and caribou habitat. Several years ago BHA went on a big podcast/social media tour to try and push their agenda on the 1002 leases. Although there is only one native village in the 1002 area, they decided instead to visit a village 150 miles south of the 1002, on the southern slope of the Brooks Range. They were able to find a local there to interview and help push their narrative, contrary to the narrative they would've heard had they visited with the native people of Kaktovik, the only village within the 1002 and essentially the only natives that will be affected by this decision. The people of Kaktovik will be the first to tell you the 1002 is barren ground, void of much other than mosquitos. They've gone so far as to send representatives to testify to congress referring to themselves as "refugees of conservation." But as much as liberal organizations such as BHA and MSM wish to push the narrative of "protecting the hunting and natural resources native Alaskans rely on," you will never hear either ever talk to the folks who actually live there to hear the inconvenient truth of it all.

I'm actually on the fence about drilling in the 1002 in the near future. I think the state of AK dropped the ball on lease sales and for that reason, they restricted themselves. But I absolutely HATE when people/organizations need to lie to push their narrative. If BHA simply just came out and said "there's no reason to open the Alaskan north slope to further exploration with the current leases under contract in already developed areas," I'd actually respect their message. But instead, they feel the need to lie to folks.

 

[WRO]

The ANWR stuff was my final nail in the coffin for BHA a few years ago. When you really know a substantial amount about a single topic and have spent a large amount of time in that area, and then watch an organization distort the facts to align to their preferred message/outcome, you can't help but just assume they must be lying about everything else too. I don't need to see their post to know that it probably has pictures of mountains. Maybe a caribou on a mountain. Probably mentions how great the habitat is and how native food and water resources are somehow now protected.

According to BHA, the 1002 area of ANWR is some sort of mountainous paradise with native hunters everywhere and critical sheep and caribou habitat. Several years ago BHA went on a big podcast/social media tour to try and push their agenda on the 1002 leases. Although there is only one native village in the 1002 area, they decided instead to visit a village 150 miles south of the 1002, on the southern slope of the Brooks Range. They were able to find a local there to interview and help push their narrative, contrary to the narrative they would've heard had they visited with the native people of Kaktovik, the only village within the 1002 and essentially the only natives that will be affected by this decision. The people of Kaktovik will be the first to tell you the 1002 is barren ground, void of much other than mosquitos. They've gone so far as to send representatives to testify to congress referring to themselves as "refugees of conservation." But as much as liberal organizations such as BHA and MSM wish to push the narrative of "protecting the hunting and natural resources native Alaskans rely on," you will never hear either ever talk to the folks who actually live there to hear the inconvenient truth of it all.

I'm actually on the fence about drilling in the 1002 in the near future. I think the state of AK dropped the ball on lease sales and for that reason, they restricted themselves. But I absolutely HATE when people/organizations need to lie to push their narrative. If BHA simply just came out and said "there's no reason to open the Alaskan north slope to further exploration with the current leases under contract in already developed areas," I'd actually respect their message. But instead, they feel the need to lie to folks.

Their completely full of shit.. I am familiar with the North slope a bit, also I spent hours going over the big land grab they thwarted. The truth is the vast majority of BLM land that is cited for disposal serves 0 public good. Its land locked with no access. I hunt a bunch of it through private access, there is literally 0 possibility for public access. Sell it or trade it and buy something the public can use.

 

[Fartrell Cluggins]

A deep dive into BHAs financials will tell you all that you need to know about them.