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

[Shrek]

I agree, the cost of living some places is insane. Truth is money doesn’t go no place in 2019, i maybe wrong but I haven’t see wages keeping up with prices really anywhere....but the government will say differently I am sure.

I’m doing significantly better the last two years but I work for myself not a wage slave. I ride the economy up and down. I’m an owner operator and I know right away if the economy slows and it’s doing great ! If your wages are flat it’s because you’re lacking ambition and hustle.

 

[Okhotnik]

Some of you folks are forgetting that the limitations of fair chase are voluntary. There are many legal ways to kill game that wouldn't qualify, and purchasing a waypoint to your trophy should be one of them. This should be seen as a cultural/ethical issue, not a legal one.

So using a guide on an out of state hunt who scouts your game before you arrive is unethical??

Please expound

 

[lak2004]

So using a guide on an out of state hunt who scouts your game before you arrive is unethical??

Please expound

Doesn't matter what argument he presents, you will cast it down. Same goes both ways. No one on here is changing anyone's mind. I bet if we had an in person conversation over a beer, it would be different.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[JWP58]

Doesn't matter what argument he presents, you will cast it down. Same goes both ways. No one on here is changing anyone's mind. I bet if we had an in person conversation over a beer, it would be different.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Yup a micro brew pint night brings everyone together.

 

[sndmn11]

I'm confused at how an article from 2013 relates to the passage of the spring bear hunt ban, which already was stated that BHA was not even in existence at the time. No I can't read the articles from the DP because they have limits.
David Petersen was an original founder of the state chapter.

David Petersen spearheaded the legislation that eliminated the spring bear hunt in Colorado and some would say partnered with anti-hunting groups to fund that movement and subsequent legislature. I had thought that he was connected with BHA from when I looked into joining a few years, but wasn't certain and that is why I asked the question on here. After I had some time to double check after lunch, I confirmed he is connected to BHA and posted those links to cite the sources.

The other linked OpEd from the Denver Post he mentioned that the CBA was a self serving organization and seemed to advocating to eliminate September hunting opportunities. He has also been in the Post writing about elk populations dwindling.

I think it is really bizarre for a person who has a past record of eliminating hunting, and is currently advocating for more of the same, to also be a chair of an organization that is for hunters. Especially when a lot of folks look at an overpopulation of bears preying on calves to be a significant factor in Colorado's declining survival rates. It seems his lobbying has resulted in creating problems and promoting his own books, and that leaves me with far more questions and confusion as to the intentions of the BHA. The issue this thread is about muddies the water even more.

 

[Okhotnik]

David Petersen spearheaded the legislation that eliminated the spring bear hunt in Colorado and some would say partnered with anti-hunting groups to fund that movement and subsequent legislature. I had thought that he was connected with BHA from when I looked into joining a few years, but wasn't certain and that is why I asked the question on here. After I had some time to double check after lunch, I confirmed he is connected to BHA and posted those links to cite the sources.

The other linked OpEd from the Denver Post he mentioned that the CBA was a self serving organization and seemed to advocating to eliminate September hunting opportunities. He has also been in the Post writing about elk populations dwindling.

I think it is really bizarre for a person who has a past record of eliminating hunting, and is currently advocating for more of the same, to also be a chair of an organization that is for hunters. Especially when a lot of folks look at an overpopulation of bears preying on calves to be a significant factor in Colorado's declining survival rates. It seems his lobbying has resulted in creating problems and promoting his own books, and that leaves me with far more questions and confusion as to the intentions of the BHA. The issue this thread is about muddies the water even more.

Great points

I was a member of BHA and I felt great Organization and other really good well intentioned members but the upper management definitely has some issues ( I learned later) that are not in support of hunting.

Caveat emptor

 

[blkqi]

So using a guide on an out of state hunt who scouts your game before you arrive is unethical??

Please expound

It was not my intention to cast judgment either way and I think if you read carefully the post you quoted you will see that.

 

[lyle_destroys]

So it is trackable and those that are doing this are held accountable for what they are doing. This is no different than guiding and those that are guides have to pay fees. These fees are because you are using a public asset and making a profit off it. No difference than logging fee, oil dividends, etc. It would mediate the ability for someone to take something that is funded by the public and make money off it.

I think you are confusing the words "public" with "government", and "fee" with "tax". These taxes only stifle free enterprise and entrepreneurship. Its proven that the more an industry is regulated, the more difficult it is to survive and thrive in, especially for the little guy. Look at the evidence in farming, family farms get pushed out because they cant afford the regulations that industrial farms can. If it was truly public land, you wouldnt be paying the government for the use of it.
So in the situation we are discussing, obviously guides operations and big outfits are already in a position to take advantage of this.
On the other hand, Joe Blow also knows where some animals are, but arent his target and would it be great to make some extra money off his labour but cant because he doesnt have the time and extra income for whatever taxes big brother thinks he owes them.
Please dont take this as me being anti-guide outfit or anti-ranch, because Im not. I support all of these things. I just will not side with more government regulation, period.

 

[HookUp]

So using a guide on an out of state hunt who scouts your game before you arrive is unethical??

Please expound

As hunters we can be behind the technology curve and wait for the general public's ban or we can be in front of the technology curve and self police. How are we going to look as hunters when the public finds out you can log onto a web site and buy animal locations? They will change the laws for us!!!

Comparing this to outfitting is an apples to oranges comparison. Outfitting has a long respected publicly accepted history.

There are so many people justifying this as a short cut to outfitting they are missing the point. We are highly regulated by public opinion for our privilege of hunting and I really suggest you look at how we appear collectively as a group instead of justifying the actions of every business in the hunting industry saying " it's all the same".

 

[BCSojourner]

BHA is the Sierra Club in drag. Every BHA member is just a useful idiot. They (anti hunting greenies) use the BHA to amplify their voice while turning the hunting community on itself. They’ll use their public land access theme as a cover but their real objective is the opposite of access. They want the land public but access for hunting is to be eliminated. It starts with this type of regulation and before you know it the regulation handbook will have 3000 pages and hunting will go away. Purity of fair chase is the first thing they have their useful BHA idiots turning on fellow hunters with. Next will be regulation on how far you may shoot , then ban rangefinders so you can’t be sure of how far you’re shooting. Then turn wheel bow hunters against traditional bow hunting. So on and so on. They already want to close just about every road on public land. That sounds great to all the young and healthy BHA hunters so heck yeah ! Wait until you are 50 and your knees are shot and a mile is like ten when you were 20. At 50 you’re chit out of luck accessing public land even if you could figure out what you can and can’t hunt and how in the 3000 page regulation guidebook. If you’re a BHA member you are a useful idiot supporting the end of hunting and access to public land to hunt on.

 

[SDC]

“There it is your group does nothing wrong and has no room for improvement. “

Where was that stated? It wasn’t. But it was what you wanted to hear. So it must true eh?
If you asked if there was room for improvement, I would answer that there is always room to improve.

“Numbers may be going up overall but a bunch of people who are hunters seem to be walking away.”

I am hunter, and I am haven’t walked away. I know many other members who are hunters and they don’t seem to be walking away, however that doesn’t me that my perception is indicative of reality. The same way that you “ seem ing “ to think hunters are walking away may not be indicative of reality either.
I did say we are growing as an organization. That however is fact, not mine or your perception.


“Also if nothing will be accomplished at the national level why are we making land tawney rich? “

Again other then you who said “nothing “ is being accomplished Nationally?
The fact is that most political work is done locally and on state level. Again you may not like it but it’s a fact.

As far a Land getting Rich, if he is he isn’t getting rich it from his BHA salary. 130k in 2019 is making a living in my neck of the woods. I would need a second income.



“Would it not be better to have a board made up of regional directors to fight these localized battles better and put resources right where needed? “

Good point. I can certainly agree that we need to be even more responsive to local issues that fall under scope of our organizations charter. I hope we continue to adapt to the changing political land scape to best serve our membership.

I walked away. Long after I should have, and no offense, I’ve got a Hell of a lot more insight into them than you. I’m damned sure not alone in this camp, either. Of that claimed 30k, a lot of it is multiple-count memberships, and then college student reduced memberships (the absolute worst for retention long-term). Inflated numbers do not a sustainable organization make.

Boil it down to this - when the plurality of funding comes from foundations like Hewlett, Wyss, and Wilburforce (or through their channels of Western Conservation, Fund for a Better Future, and the like), and NONE of those funders 1) put money into any other hunting org, and 2) pour millions into groups that oppose hunting, trapping, predator management, habitat management, and the like...

Then, yeah, someone has to call BS. I was duped; big time. They weren’t always like that, but they damned sure are now.

Doubt me? Look at the financials. 2017, 51% came from foundations and the overwhelming majority of that from the ones I listed. That’s on their annual report and the reports of the foundations. That is counting the BS “corporate” funding that is almost all merchandise which does not act as cash. In 2018, the funding is all marked restricted, no foundations listed at all on the annual report, and even counting corporate up to 56%. Membership (“boots on the ground”) pales to this figure.

Go ahead; look it up. Then check who else those foundations fund. Take a look, too, at who their staff might have been over the past few years and any connections (that you won’t find publicly stated or recused).

Now, back to the bill - analyzed, discussed, trampled, and now tribal. Lovely.

Next?

 

[SDC]

Shrek is not wrong.

 

[Matt Cashell]

Whew... hot thread!

Shrek hasnt painted me with the “useful idiot” broad brush in a long time!

I really don’t have a strong opinion on this.

It should be understood that this bill doesn’t outlaw scouting packages or even camp, water, glassing, etc. locations. It says specifically it only outlaws selling locations of a SPECIFIC ANIMAL. For some reason selling a specific animal’s location doesn’t have much of a fair chase ring to it to me.

I don’t think outfitters should sell locations for specific animals either, frankly.

I’m with other BHA members in that I would rather be spending resources on access issues, but taking a position on this isn’t a deal breaker for me. MT BHA’s work on the Horse Creek Easement was great!

 

[dieselchessy]

I don’t care about taxes neer so much as I care about oversite and limits to the exploitation of our natural resources.
There are reasons you need a permit to operate commercialy in our national forests and on our public lands.
Mushroom pickers, film companies, tour outfits, outfitters, guides, ect...

 

[Ndbowhunter]

I can appreciate that angle.

Just seems like coordinate sales should fall under the same umbrella as guiding.

 

[BCSojourner]

You are kidding right? "Wait until you are 50 and your knees are shot and then you won't be able to access public lands?" Well I'm well beyond that, have had both knees replaced, have no trouble accessing public lands, and I don't need roads to do it. In fact, I stay away from the roads as much as possible, and I don't need a GPS point on an animal to figure out where to hunt either. I am also a lifetime BHA member and would be happy to discuss public land management and how (and who) determines access. BHA does not close roads - that is a very public process that involves many interest groups, of which BHA is only one, in determining road and trail designations (i.e, open, closed, or limited), in a process called travel management planning (USFS or BLM). I wish I was still in my 50's but I still push myself every year and count the days until the next hunting season and some of my hunting partners are much younger. If all of this makes me a "useful idiot" so be it, but I'm guessing that there are a lot of us "useful idiots" out there who truly appreciate the privilege of being public land owners. Nothing else like like it anywhere unless you are ready to fork up big $ for trespass or lease fees and hunt private land. Still plenty of opportunity out there, well beyond age 50! Get involved and make a difference but be sure that you have all of the information before you start classifying BHA members as "useful idiots supporting the end of hunting and access".

 

[CorbLand]

I think you are confusing the words "public" with "government", and "fee" with "tax". These taxes only stifle free enterprise and entrepreneurship. Its proven that the more an industry is regulated, the more difficult it is to survive and thrive in, especially for the little guy. Look at the evidence in farming, family farms get pushed out because they cant afford the regulations that industrial farms can. If it was truly public land, you wouldnt be paying the government for the use of it.
So in the situation we are discussing, obviously guides operations and big outfits are already in a position to take advantage of this.
On the other hand, Joe Blow also knows where some animals are, but arent his target and would it be great to make some extra money off his labour but cant because he doesnt have the time and extra income for whatever taxes big brother thinks he owes them.
Please dont take this as me being anti-guide outfit or anti-ranch, because Im not. I support all of these things. I just will not side with more government regulation, period.

I don’t understand your perceived difference between public and government. Guides pay a “tax” to make a profit off a publicly funded thing. Whatever you want to call it, it makes sense. Can I set up a wall tent on BLM ground and advertise it as a hotel? If I can, I am going to be rich while the American tax payer foots the bill for the ground.

Family farmers are not failing because of regulations. They are failing because corporate farms can produce more and charge less. I know plenty of family owned farms that are doing just fine. Farmers and ranchers are the only people that I know that cry poverty from the window of a brand new pickup.

I am not a big fan of more government regulation but I am also not a fan of someone making money while I help foot the bill. I don’t think they need to pay the amount a guide does nor does there need to be limit on how many in an area. I do think there needs to be some way for someone that wants to do this to pay a “tax” for utilizing a publicly held item for profit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lak2004]

I don’t understand your perceived difference between public and government. Guides pay a “tax” to make a profit off a publicly funded thing. Whatever you want to call it, it makes sense. Can I set up a wall tent on BLM ground and advertise it as a hotel? If I can, I am going to be rich while the American tax payer foots the bill for the ground.

Family farmers are not failing because of regulations. They are failing because corporate farms can produce more and charge less. I know plenty of family owned farms that are doing just fine. Farmers and ranchers are the only people that I know that cry poverty from the window of a brand new pickup.

I am not a big fan of more government regulation but I am also not a fan of someone making money while I help foot the bill. I don’t think they need to pay the amount a guide does nor does there need to be limit on how many in an area. I do think there needs to be some way for someone that wants to do this to pay a “tax” for utilizing a publicly held item for profit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for pointing out reality. This is not relevant to this conversation, but I know farmers that scoff at public health/welfare subsidies and are more than willing to take plenty of government money for ag purposes. Hypocritical much?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[lyle_destroys]

I don’t understand your perceived difference between public and government. Guides pay a “tax” to make a profit off a publicly funded thing. Whatever you want to call it, it makes sense. Can I set up a wall tent on BLM ground and advertise it as a hotel? If I can, I am going to be rich while the American tax payer foots the bill for the ground.

Family farmers are not failing because of regulations. They are failing because corporate farms can produce more and charge less. I know plenty of family owned farms that are doing just fine. Farmers and ranchers are the only people that I know that cry poverty from the window of a brand new pickup.

I am not a big fan of more government regulation but I am also not a fan of someone making money while I help foot the bill. I don’t think they need to pay the amount a guide does nor does there need to be limit on how many in an area. I do think there needs to be some way for someone that wants to do this to pay a “tax” for utilizing a publicly held item for profit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I understand your concerns of having no regulation of public lands and it being misused, but I still believe the government is #1 at misusing resources. We often become cash cows to their bloated policies and what started as an honest program turns into something that doesnt even resemble the idea. Often one regulation turns into a slippery slope of over-regulation.
How about instead of being federally regulated or forcing people into starting an LLC for it. Why not treat it at the state level with licensing options. Just like buying an elk tag for a gmu, why not let the state agencies offer a big game locators license. Could be issued or denied on a gmu/wmu basis. The money would be going directly back into conservation, not lost in some federal tax system. And there would still be some loose oversight to keep use on track.
Does that seem resonable at all?

 

[MtGomer]

I understand your concerns of having no regulation of public lands and it being misused, but I still believe the government is #1 at misusing resources. We often become cash cows to their bloated policies and what started as an honest program turns into something that doesnt even resemble the idea. Often one regulation turns into a slippery slope of over-regulation.
How about instead of being federally regulated or forcing people into starting an LLC for it. Why not treat it at the state level with licensing options. Just like buying an elk tag for a gmu, why not let the state agencies offer a big game locators license. Could be issued or denied on a gmu/wmu basis. The money would be going directly back into conservation, not lost in some federal tax system. And there would still be some loose oversight to keep use on track.
Does that seem resonable at all?

I think regulating it at the state level sounds reasonable. Which is exactly what this thread originally was about. Montana, through Senate Bill 127 voting on whether or not they will regulate it at the state level. The state level regulations they are proposing are a ban. Other states might choose to regulate it differently. or not regulate it at all.
Considering Montana takes a very flippant attitude toward even the most egregious acts of poaching, it would be interesting to see how they would investigate and or prosecute something like this. A practice I don’t really agree with, but that I do not compare to the organized poaching of trophy animals, which will get you a slap on the wrist in Montana.
There is some irony in a state that sells five over the counter mule deer doe licenses per person, hunts bucks over the counter with rifles in the rut, sells elk licenses for $20, and hunts them six months out of the year, being one of the first states to jump on board regulating this if it passes. No surprise Wyoming did it. Wyoming cares about and manages their wildlife very well.