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

[5MilesBack]

Politics is local. And local politics is your foundation to success.

Why do you have to bring politics into this? Sound familiar?

Politics is in everything, it's everywhere. Two differing opinions is politics.

 

[5MilesBack]

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.

But what happens when the effects of the alcohol wear off, and everyone goes back to their original minds? That's the problem.......you show people where the fallacies and logic breakdowns are with issues, and they still stick to their original mindset. That's like incorrectly believing that 1+1=3, and even after being shown why that's not correct......they still stick to it.

 

[lak2004]

But what happens when the effects of the alcohol wear off, and everyone goes back to their original minds? That's the problem.......you show people where the fallacies and logic breakdowns are with issues, and they still stick to their original mindset. That's like incorrectly believing that 1+1=3, and even after being shown why that's not correct......they still stick to it.

I suppose if you're not open minded.
https://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[WV Mountaineer]

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?

BOOM!!!!! This is what’ve I’ve spent four years pointing out on these public forum debates. It simply says everything to me about corporate’s direction versus the intent of The hunter members in the field doing the local chapter work. With nothing but political parlays from the national office that ALWAYS lends to a very one sided political stance, is decidedly more proof of why I felt/feel this way.


I have not one thing against the intent of most hunting members. I probably agree with most all of them, on all topics, 100% of the time. I just can’t give my money to an organization that is led by political proponents.

 

[5MilesBack]

I suppose if you're not open minded.
https://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe

And that's part of the problem, but the bigger problem is belligerent ignorance or just blatant rebellion. Kind of like what we see in Congress all the time. Even when they know the correct answer, they still fight against it.

 

[CorbLand]

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 never said it should be at a Federal Level. Generally, business licenses are at a State level.

 

[SoDaky]

A legal challenge and delight only lawyers could dream up.

 

[jspradley]

BHA... I love you but no. Just no.

 

[16Bore]

I don’t see how BHA feels that they hold the definition of fair chase and ethics.

The “everyone gets a trophy generation” put away the ball gloves and picked up rifles.

 

[Molon Labe]

I will preface this with the fact I only read the first 5 pages. But I just wanted to put my thoughts out there because this seems like an interesting debate.

I do not agree with selling locations and have never hired a guide. My opinion only. I would go as far as saying that I HATE the fact that people buy coordinates to hunt a specific animal and it makes me sick.

BUT I do feel that it is well within the rights of free enterprising Americans to put time in scouting and learning an area in order to profit from that work. It actually makes me quite happy that someone came up with this idea. How impressive. A very good use of resources and outsourcing labor to reach a market.

This is a win win situation for everyone involved in the transaction. The buyer can spend his time working an occupation they can do well. He can then spend his hard earned money with a very high perceived rate of return. The seller can spend time scouting which is an occupation they can do well. He can then spend his hard earned scouting money on something that he struggles accomplishing. Getting a high perceived rate of return on his earned money.

Free market capitalism at its best...and worst...according to my opinion.

I don't really see the need to regulate the sale of coordinates. Unless it is having a negative impact on game numbers? Is it destroying a public resource? As long as the selling of spots is not hurting other people that are trying to enjoy a public resource there is no need to create more laws and regulation. It is a slippery slope.

Seems like the people that are against selling coordinates are just putting their ethics and opinions above other individuals. And that is garbage. I agree with them wholeheartedly but I can't force my opinions or ethics on another individual at gun point. It is wrong and accomplishes zero.

This debate is centered around emotions. And emotions are stupid.

The ethical debate will pit us against each other. Which we like to do for some reason. Gun vs bow. Long range killing vs "normal" rifle killing distances. Expandable vs fixed blades. Longbow vs compound. Crossbow vs traditional archery. It goes on and on and everyone has an opinion on what is ethical means of taking game.

Now where does BHA fall in this? I am not really sure why BHA is spending money fighting this issue. I dont really see where it fits into the overall path that BHA is taking but I'm starting to get a feeling as to where BHA is headed.

 

[16Bore]

$1000 for GPS waypoint
$75 Uber to trailhead
$100 to meat processor

Selfie with a dead buck on Instagram to show the world I’m a hunter.


Priceless.....

 

[BCSojourner]

I never said it should be at a Federal Level. Generally, business licenses are at a State level.

Would (or should) still require a Federal authorization to operate on Federal lands, just like outfitter/guides. They are required to be licensed through the State but permitted to operate on Federal or pubic lands. Has been this way for a very long time and it is good that the system exists or quality hunting opportunities and experiences would be a thing of the past. This is not an opinion - it is a fact! As much as the Feds get blasted for management the employees on the ground still have a passion for managing public resources and resource uses in accordance with the Federal Lands Management Policy Act. If it were not for statutes like this, the Wilderness Act, even the actual creation of USFS and National Forests, and the BLM, you would not have all any public lands and the access that exists today. So..........yes continue to question management because your input counts and management can always be improved, stop broad-brushing those who work very hard on the ground as part of the politics, and remember how lucky we all are that these agencies (State and Federal) care about your lands.

 

[goathunter]

I haven't read this whole thread so this may have been said, but this isn't the first time BHA has seemed a little questionable on their MO. Google their Quiet Water Initiative (Or Act?). I think alot of people get behind organizations because they have good marketing without really knowing too much about them.

 

[oldgoat]

I'm behind them on this! Mixed emotions about the guide requirements in other states, but I'm not a resident of those states so what I think about how they manage the wildlife that belongs to those residents doesn't matter much

 

[orionthehunter1]

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

Except david Peterson pushed for the ban of spring bear hunting and is the founder of the Colorado BHA chapter. He is also leading the fight against the CBA

 

[JWP58]

Still not completely accurate, but I'm sure no one will change your perspective.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Care to share what is accurate?

Many (like me) love the idea of an organization fighting to keep public land accessible and in the hands of the public. However many are also turned off by the pomposity of bha; who believe their definition of fair chase is holy sacrament. Along with their willingness to hold hands with entities that actively attempt to undermine hunting. Oh and their less than transparent financial situation.

So please, enlighten us.

 

[orionthehunter1]

Still not completely accurate, but I'm sure no one will change your perspective.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Which part isn't accurate?

 

[orionthehunter1]

I'll just say that I am not sure who Orion thinks he is leading in any fight against CBA.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Guess you missed his all out assault on the CBA in his editorial a couple weeks ago??????

 

[lak2004]

Guess you missed his all out assault on the CBA in his editorial a couple weeks ago??????

I missed the part where he said he was speaking on behalf of BHA and its membership or was leading a group against CBA. Please point me to those words.

 

[orionthehunter1]

I'm sorry but when you are the founding member of the state chapter your actions and words follow you to your organizations, especially the ones you are running. Sorry, but anybody heading the backcountry hunters and anglers shouldn't be an integral part of getting a hunt banned. They also shouldn't be crapping on bowhunters in an editorial read by tens of thousands.