BHA Supporting Legislation Outlawing the Sale of Information on Big Game Locations

[Mike7]

Why? Wouldn't change anyones mind about BHA anyway...for starters.

Seems that BHA annual donations of $750-$1500 to the WGF AccessYes program doesn't change anyone's mind. Or the fact that a couple members are in the top 10 private donors to the AccessYes program as well. Fighting state land exchanges that would have eliminated 4000 acres of BLM to some of the best elk hunting in SE Wyoming, not to mention impacting another 5-6K acre of Forest service didn't change anyone's mind. How about the county road vacations that WYBHA opposed and successful lobbied the Laramie County Commission to deny, the ones that would have eliminated public access to 4-5 sections of accessible BLM and State, that didn't change any minds. How about just last week when I contacted the Laramie County Bridge and Roads and had them remove an illegal lock of a road that was blocking access to several sections of State...yeah, that didn't change minds either.

Its best to just keep hurling the bullchit around and then ask them to solve YOUR problems...good thinking.

My experience on this site doesn't seem to be the same as your perception. I have seen people specifically cite things they like and dislike about BHA, and where and why they feel unrepresented with respect to "some" of those things. Calling all of this bullcrap doesn't help bring people your direction at all.

Everyone has to decide on their own whether BHA is doing more good then harm in their own view. I think a lot of people here, including myself hope that BHA could become an organization that they could more fully support. I don't expect any organization to align with me on everything, but I do expect them to admit when they might be wrong, or at least try to see other views and consider their own potential hypocrisy.

 

[Mike7]

A possible way to change the Wyoming Wilderness thing would probably be having other states not allow Wyoming residents to hunt on public land without a guide, unless there was a state to state reciprocation agreement?

 

[Justin Crossley]

This is a hot topic and as always, differing opinions are welcome here. I just spent quite a bit of time reading through and deleting posts that I found to be more name calling or just plain negative than debating. I don't want to waste more of my time so keep it civil or I will lock the thread and start banning people.

Thank you!

 

[CorbLand]

My experience on this site doesn't seem to be the same as your perception. I have seen people specifically cite things they like and dislike about BHA, and where and why they feel unrepresented with respect to "some" of those things. Calling all of this bullcrap doesn't help bring people your direction at all.

Everyone has to decide on their own whether BHA is doing more good then harm in their own view. I think a lot of people here, including myself hope that BHA could become an organization that they could more fully support. I don't expect any organization to align with me on everything, but I do expect them to admit when they might be wrong, or at least try to see other views and consider their own potential hypocrisy.

I agree with your context, especially with wishing I could feel comfortable contributing to BHA. I have always been on the fence with them and the longer it goes, the more I lean to the opposite side.

That being said, you can not take this forum as a principle of their donor base. To many people surround themselves with like minded people and think that they represent the majority. Maybe the majority of their base does support this. Maybe this has been brought up as a potential problem and thats why they support this. I dont know, just food for thought.

I do find it funny that two other organizations also supported this and no one has brought them up, just BHA.

 

[SDC]

I agree with your context, especially with wishing I could feel comfortable contributing to BHA. I have always been on the fence with them and the longer it goes, the more I lean to the opposite side.

That being said, you can not take this forum as a principle of their donor base. To many people surround themselves with like minded people and think that they represent the majority. Maybe the majority of their base does support this. Maybe this has been brought up as a potential problem and thats why they support this. I dont know, just food for thought.

I do find it funny that two other organizations also supported this and no one has brought them up, just BHA.

What the donor base truly is and what it represents is where the focus should lie.

This issue, of the bill, has been beaten to death. The facts of what the bill is and what it would actually do (and not do) is lost now in the emotional tribalism.

 

[Mark86]

Hot topic for sure. I’ll throw some gas on it. I don’t care if people want to sell animal locations. That doesn’t mean I support it but my thought on it is that if someone wants to take the time to scout, locate, pattern an animal but doesn’t want to give it away for free then go for it. Get as much money as you can for it.

To me, it says WAY more about the guy that’s buying the intel than the guy selling it. I think that the type to just pay for it instead of doing the legwork themselves is more than likely not going to put forth the time and effort to find the animal. Maybe not though. Maybe since people have been buying/selling animal locations all the mature animals have been killed

Ultimately the buyer still has to go hunt and get it done, right?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mtmuley]

Great. A bunch of guys stumbling around Montana with their face in a phone or GPS. mtmuley

 

[ODB]

Great. A bunch of guys stumbling around Montana with their face in a phone or GPS. mtmuley

Methinks that’s the case already with so much technology geared toward hunters... and of course Instagram, Twitter, grocery lists...Gaia...Earthmate...podcasts...etc etc...

 

[mtmuley]

Methinks that’s the case already with so much technology geared toward hunters... and of course Instagram, Twitter, grocery lists...Gaia...Earthmate...podcasts...etc etc...

Well, maybe it's time for me to start a side business. So guys can stumble around Montana looking for the big one. mtmuley

 

[BuzzH]

I’m thinking outfitters lobbied back in the day for the state to pass legislation that allows non residents to participate in all activities on public federal land in Wyoming except hunt. I’m thinking this was for the sole purpose for those outfitters to have vast amounts of public federal land to hunt without having to deal with non resident competition for the same resource. I’m thinking that our / everybody’s tax dollars resident or non resident contribute towards those lands. I’m thinking every other state allows non residents to hunt in wilderness areas except Wyoming. I’m thinking YOU would have a different opinion if you didn’t live in Wyoming. I’m thinking most Wyoming residents enjoy and like the law but I’m also thinking most Wyoming residents quietly know its wrong.

I’m willing to listen and learn, there’s only so much time in a day to gather information, work and pay the bills.

It appears BHA does a lot to help the public land fight. It also appears they do a lot for the public land in who they deem fit to enjoy those public lands. Example, the quiet waters initiative they tried to get passed in MT a couple years back.

You are correct, the law was passed via a push from WOGA and no question its to benefit outfitters.

No, I wouldn't have a different view if I lived outside Wyoming, I've said for years, longer than BHA has been around, that the Wilderness Guide Law is bullchit. But, I'm also smart enough to know, that "earmarking and throwing money" at a court case, that's already been upheld in the State Supreme Court over the WGL is not only a waste of resources, but a waste of time.

You also fail to realize, that the ownership of Land has absolutely not one thing to do with a States right to discriminate against NR hunters. You arent being denied access to Federal Lands at all, only being told where and under what conditions the State of Wyoming allows you to hunt our wildlife. That is law that has been challenged, over and over again. Its been challenged under the Supremacy Clause, Dormant Commerce Clause, Immunities and Privileges, Equal protection clause...etc. etc. etc. Don't forget about Public Law Number 109-13,
section 6036. Also fair to note that your hunting privileges, as a NR, are not a right afforded to you under the United States Constitution. As such, the only "right" you have, is the right to sing the blues about discriminatory NR access to a States wildlife. Its just a fact. Don't hear anyone bitching about Alaska forcing people to have a guide for grizzlies, sheep, and goats. Don't hear anyone bitching because some states don't allow NR's to hunt elk, sheep, etc. in their states. The reason is, there is no legal obligation for them to do so and perfectly within the law for them to discriminate against NR hunters.

Now, if you want to have a discussion about trying to change state Statute, there can be a discussion. But, I wont be listening to a bunch of backyard lawyering, by people mostly from out of State and aren't even BHA members, who don't even understand the basics of the Law. I wont be listening to the same people tell me how I/we should be wasting my/our time, my/our resources, to fight their battle...wont do it. Want to be the tip of the spear on lobbying the State Legislature to repeal the law? I'll do what I can, but that battle wont be won by just whimpering about it or expecting BHA to do it for you. That is a heavy lift that will take more than posting on a hunting forum. Even if it could be done, still wouldn't be enough to satisfy a majority of the people that bash BHA, just the way it is.

The battles worth fighting are those to maintain what we all have, so that more isn't taken away. We barely have enough volunteers and board members to do that. I'm fine with just doing that at this point, with what volunteer time I have, with what I have for resources to do it.

 

[BuzzH]

One a serious note, you draw a tag, invite a buddy to come with you to help scout. He goes up one drainage you go the other. You pay all his expenses for helping. Ironically he finds you a stud, you go in next week and kill it. Because you paid his way would you be in violation of this law? You are in the spirit that’s for damn sure.

Depends on the State law, but more than likely and technically, yes it would be a violation. But, that would be the case even without the law in question, at least in Wyoming. You cant take reimbursement for your expenses without being an outfitter/guide, against current Statute already. I was accused (wrongly) by a member of this, and other hunting forums for accepting reimbursement in the form of hunting gear, for helping a friend on an elk hunt this year.

 

[cuerro viejo]

Depends on the State law, but more than likely and technically, yes it would be a violation. But, that would be the case even without the law in question, at least in Wyoming. You cant take reimbursement for your expenses without being an outfitter/guide, against current Statute already. I was accused (wrongly) by a member of this, and other hunting forums for accepting reimbursement in the form of hunting gear, for helping a friend on an elk hunt this year.

It’s mind blowing we are fighting about a law that would strengthen the legal implications of this.

 

[sndmn11]

Isn't BHA connected to the lobbying, maybe even was the catalyst, that went on in eliminating a spring Bear hunt in Colorado and the stipulation that the season not start before 9/1? I also think I have been reading about BHA pushing for changes to Colorado Elk licenses that would limit available license?

 

[KurtR]

You are correct, the law was passed via a push from WOGA and no question its to benefit outfitters.

No, I wouldn't have a different view if I lived outside Wyoming, I've said for years, longer than BHA has been around, that the Wilderness Guide Law is bullchit. But, I'm also smart enough to know, that "earmarking and throwing money" at a court case, that's already been upheld in the State Supreme Court over the WGL is not only a waste of resources, but a waste of time.

You also fail to realize, that the ownership of Land has absolutely not one thing to do with a States right to discriminate against NR hunters. You arent being denied access to Federal Lands at all, only being told where and under what conditions the State of Wyoming allows you to hunt our wildlife. That is law that has been challenged, over and over again. Its been challenged under the Supremacy Clause, Dormant Commerce Clause, Immunities and Privileges, Equal protection clause...etc. etc. etc. Don't forget about Public Law Number 109-13,
section 6036. Also fair to note that your hunting privileges, as a NR, are not a right afforded to you under the United States Constitution. As such, the only "right" you have, is the right to sing the blues about discriminatory NR access to a States wildlife. Its just a fact. Don't hear anyone bitching about Alaska forcing people to have a guide for grizzlies, sheep, and goats. Don't hear anyone bitching because some states don't allow NR's to hunt elk, sheep, etc. in their states. The reason is, there is no legal obligation for them to do so and perfectly within the law for them to discriminate against NR hunters.

Now, if you want to have a discussion about trying to change state Statute, there can be a discussion. But, I wont be listening to a bunch of backyard lawyering, by people mostly from out of State and aren't even BHA members, who don't even understand the basics of the Law. I wont be listening to the same people tell me how I/we should be wasting my/our time, my/our resources, to fight their battle...wont do it. Want to be the tip of the spear on lobbying the State Legislature to repeal the law? I'll do what I can, but that battle wont be won by just whimpering about it or expecting BHA to do it for you. That is a heavy lift that will take more than posting on a hunting forum. Even if it could be done, still wouldn't be enough to satisfy a majority of the people that bash BHA, just the way it is.

The battles worth fighting are those to maintain what we all have, so that more isn't taken away. We barely have enough volunteers and board members to do that. I'm fine with just doing that at this point, with what volunteer time I have, with what I have for resources to do it.

Here is the major rub. State chapters BHA do a hell of a lot of good stuff. The national leadership is iffy in lots of peoples opinions. But you are so militant in the fact BHA does no wrong and has no where to improve that hunters are being pushed away.

 

[vanish]

Isn't BHA connected to the lobbying, maybe even was the catalyst, that went on in eliminating a spring Bear hunt in Colorado and the stipulation that the season not start before 9/1?

No, this is not accurate. That was passed in 1992, and BHA wasn't even formed until 2004.

 

[vanish]

@robby denning - Addressing you as this relates to your business.

I'm curious on someone's point earlier. Wouldn't it be a requirement to have a commercial photography permit to sell a photo of an animal taken on National Forest land?

 

[Trial153]

Who is BHA pushing away? Considering we are now up to almost 30k members and increasing yearly, seems kind of hard increasing member at the rate we while pushing people away. The fact of the matter is we are diverse group with plenty of divergent opinions however that hasnt stopped us from tackling issues together.
I keep hearing how locally and on the state level we do great but fall short nationally. Well I got news for you. The state a local level is where most of the fight is. Win there and your winning. If you hoping for big sweeping wins on the federal levels from BHA or any conservation or lobbying group you going to be waiting a long time between win or opportunity to fight.
Politics is local. And local politics is your foundation to success.

 

[BuzzH]

Here is the major rub. State chapters BHA do a hell of a lot of good stuff. The national leadership is iffy in lots of peoples opinions. But you are so militant in the fact BHA does no wrong and has no where to improve that hunters are being pushed away.

BHA isn't for everyone...same as DU, TU, TRCP, RMEF, MDF, etc. etc. etc.

 

[CorbLand]

Here is the major rub. State chapters BHA do a hell of a lot of good stuff. The national leadership is iffy in lots of peoples opinions. But you are so militant in the fact BHA does no wrong and has no where to improve that hunters are being pushed away.

This is the unfortunate part of most organizations. The difference between the local chapter of RMEF versus the one that is an hour and half away is major. The local Pheasants Forever is possibly the worst organization I have ever seen.

There is a local BHA chapter here that is ran as a club for the local university. I follow them on instagram and have signed up as a volunteer multiple times but never hear anything about actually volunteering. I however always manage to hear about how cool the president of the club is, how I should come spend money at their monthly shin digs and how I should have gone to the city meeting and support them on banning plastic bags in our community.

I have yet to see anything that this chapter has done to protect my public lands. It really makes me sad because I really want to help but I dont see how my money or time will go to benefit public lands.

 

[sndmn11]

No, this is not accurate. That was passed in 1992, and BHA wasn't even formed until 2004.

I had time to do some more research, I must have two David Petersens of Durango confused.

https://www.backcountryhunters.org/david_petersen_vice_chair_conservation
https://www.denverpost.com/2013/06/...-of-colorados-spring-bear-hunt-is-right-call/

Here is a link to the 1/20/19 article that "David Petersen" of Durango is talking about limiting September hunting opportunities. https://www.denverpost.com/2019/01/...s-shutdown-densification-of-denver-gov-polis/