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

[BuzzH]

Great. Now, compare that to the $1.4M spent last year by the org on travel and advertising. Compare it to the grant funding that came in via Hewlett, Wyss, and Wilburforce and the like, and their funnels, that drive nearly 60% of the organizational operating revenue. Compare that to the foundation funding sources tied to the provided lists of anti-hunting, anti-trapping, anti-management groups.

The org, as it is, is exactly what I’ve stated and why. Individuals are not the org.

Look, the funding sources are what they are.

But, again, if I were a large donor, and my mission was to be an anti-trapping, anti-hunting organization, how much sense does it make, for me to financially support a non-profit that has chapters that fund and promote wildlife, hunting, fishing, trapping, and access issues?

How do you reconcile that?

Its totally counterintuitive to fund the very thing you're trying to destroy...makes zero sense on any level.

I also don't have any trouble with the travel expenses...it takes money to drive across the State of Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Idaho, etc. etc. to testify on behalf of wildlife, public lands, hunting, fishing, trapping, and all that. Not to mention the expenses incurred to testify in D.C. I've lobbied there and I can tell you its a lot of work and its not a cheap place to visit/work.

While I'm lucky to be in a position to eat those expenses when I travel to commission meetings, legislative session, interim meetings, migration meetings, yada yada...many aren't. Its a wise use of funding to have the hunting and fishing community, as well as State Board members there to testify and help to ensure Sportsmen have a voice.

Would you rather those meetings be dominated by Ag, outfitter, real-estate, business, county commissions, and antihunting organizations? Because I can tell you, all those interests have paid lobbyist's with expense accounts at those meetings. They aren't there to support hunters, anglers, public lands, and wildlife...that's just a fact.

So, you can bitch all you want about the funders and where the funds are spent, but the only way we can effectively advocate for public lands is to spend money getting people in front of the decision makers and having our voice heard.

I wish there was a way around it, but the typical, apathetic hunters arent showing up to meetings...if I can pay minimal travel expenses to get them there, I'll do so and never bat an eye doing so.

 

[BuzzH]

Can you provide a link to lawsuits filed by BHA to gain access for non residents?

Thanks


D

No, how about you do some research on how to go about effectively making the changes and the case law around the WGL. If you spent as much time doing some research on that, as you do whining about it...you might get somewhere.

Thanks.

 

[BuzzH]

No, how about you do some research on how to go about effectively making the changes and the case law around the WGL. If you spent as much time doing some research on that, as you do whining about it...you might get somewhere.

To illustrate your "knowledge" please explain on what grounds you file the lawsuit and how you reckon that would be effective.

Google it...

Thanks.

 

[BuzzH]

Can you provide a link to lawsuits filed by BHA to gain access for non residents?

Thanks


D

Hint:

Thanks.

Donald J. Schutz, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Tom Thorne, Wyoming Game & Fish Director, in His Official Capacity; State of Wyoming; J. Michael Powers, Wyoming Game & Fish Commissioner, for District # 1, in His Official Capacity; Linda Fleming, Wyoming Ga

Donald J. Schutz, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Tom Thorne, Wyoming Game & Fish Director, in His Official Capacity; State of Wyoming; J. Michael Powers, Wyoming Game & Fish Commissioner, for District # 1, in His Official Capacity; Linda Fleming, Wyoming Game & Fish Commissioner, for District # 2, in...

law.justia.com

 

[Matt Cashell]

Is WY BHA working on getting access for non resident hunters to wilderness areas?

I am curious if Buzz’ answer on this changes your opinion at all?

Meateater spoke out on this issue as well...

https://www.themeateater.com/conservation/policy-and-legislation/americas-worst-hunting-law-access-denied-in-wyoming-wilderness-areas

The conspiracy theory about BHA does intrigue me. I understand the funding-link concern, but I still don’t see the endgame for how BHA is secretly anti-hunting. What does the springing of the trap look like?

I support BHA’s advocacy for public lands. Both on the state chapter (Horse Creek Easement) and national (Sabinoso Wilderness Access) levels. Somehow BHA critics ignore these huge victories.

That doesn’t mean I supported BHA’s every move. “Quiet Waters” was an unnecessary debacle, and I am glad it fell to the wayside.

As far as the point of this original thread, I don’t see why states shouldn’t regulate hunting, whether it is scouting packages, waypoint sales, or bag limits. The history of unregulated hunting and market hunting in America isn’t exactly the model of success.

 

[jspradley]

Its totally counterintuitive to fund the very thing you're trying to destroy...makes zero sense on any level.

Thats just what THEY want you to think!!!! Open your eyes man! Connect the dots! Follow the money!!!!

 

[jspradley]

I mean for real, how many of the big names in the hunting industry are aligned with the BHA in some way or another?

You have to have a pretty strong foil hat game to consider all those guys secret anti-hunting advocates.

But then again that sort of thinking does fit pretty well with the jealousy of success we see from a lot of "our side"...

 

[Okhotnik]

I am curious if Buzz’ answer on this changes your opinion at all?

Meateater spoke out on this issue as well...

https://www.themeateater.com/conservation/policy-and-legislation/americas-worst-hunting-law-access-denied-in-wyoming-wilderness-areas

The conspiracy theory about BHA does intrigue me. I understand the funding-link concern, but I still don’t see the endgame for how BHA is secretly anti-hunting. What does the springing of the trap look like?

I support BHA’s advocacy for public lands. Both on the state chapter (Horse Creek Easement) and national (Sabinoso Wilderness Access) levels. Somehow BHA critics ignore these huge victories.

That doesn’t mean I supported BHA’s every move. “Quiet Waters” was an unnecessary debacle, and I am glad it fell to the wayside.

As far as the point of this original thread, I don’t see why states shouldn’t regulate hunting, whether it is scouting packages, waypoint sales, or bag limits. The history of unregulated hunting and market hunting in America isn’t exactly the model of success.

I never said states should not regulate their own laws. I simply stated that if someone wants to market hunting areas and are willing to register and pay fees to operate a hunting based business like outfitters I don’t see why they can’t. It’s no different than outfitters using public resources to make a buck and put “ lazy hunters” too lazy to put the time in ( not my words) on game.

I see no difference between this service and hunting outfitters operating in public lands.

I have no plans to use this service and use guides only where required in Alaska and Canada and I’ll pay an outfitter to pack out an elk in a very remote area. Guys that live far away from hunting areas might want to utilize these services which do not differ from using a guide in my mind and are much more affordable.

Now if you are against outfitters using public resources to make a buck and this location service we would have an honest discussion.

 

[Matt Cashell]

I see no difference between this service and hunting outfitters operating in public lands.


Now if you are against outfitters using public resources to make a buck and this location service we would have an honest discussion.

That part of my post wasn’t in response to you specifically, I quoted you regarding the WGL and BHA issue only.

I am not against outfitters or scouting services. I agree they are similar in services they provide. However, only one is currently regulated in MT.

I do think selling a specific animal’s specific location goes a bit too far for either guides or scouts, and it would be reasonable to restrict it.

 

[mntnguide]

I never said states should not regulate their own laws. I simply stated that if someone wants to market hunting areas and are willing to register and pay fees to operate a hunting based business like outfitters I don’t see why they can’t. It’s no different than outfitters using public resources to make a buck and put “ lazy hunters” too lazy to put the time in ( not my words) on game.

I see no difference between this service and hunting outfitters operating in public lands.

The difference is, outfitters are regulated, licensed, permitted, and taxed. Outfitters must have forest service permits that allow them to operate on public lands. They are required to document every client, every use day etc, and they have specific regions or areas they can operate in... these other "scouting services" are not required to have any of that. One of the bigger points of this is that those scouting services are fully "assisting" someone's hunt, and should at least be required to have an outfitting license to do so.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Fatcamp]

Man, I appreciate your viewpoints and always read and consider what you have to say. But I gotta disagree that the only losers with fewer hunters are those listed. I firmly believe, and it’s been said by others in this thread, that if we keep losing hunters, we’re going to lose hunting.

The nation will go the way of California soon enough, and the lack of predator control will ruin hunting.

The founder of BHA in Colorado was behind the push to stop spring bear hunting. I have been told they don't speak to predator issues now due to being an "access" organization. Hasn't stopped them from addressing this threads topic, but I'm sure that's different.

 

[SDC]

Look, the funding sources are what they are.

But, again, if I were a large donor, and my mission was to be an anti-trapping, anti-hunting organization, how much sense does it make, for me to financially support a non-profit that has chapters that fund and promote wildlife, hunting, fishing, trapping, and access issues?

How do you reconcile that?

Its totally counterintuitive to fund the very thing you're trying to destroy...makes zero sense on any level.

I also don't have any trouble with the travel expenses...it takes money to drive across the State of Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Idaho, etc. etc. to testify on behalf of wildlife, public lands, hunting, fishing, trapping, and all that. Not to mention the expenses incurred to testify in D.C. I've lobbied there and I can tell you its a lot of work and its not a cheap place to visit/work.

While I'm lucky to be in a position to eat those expenses when I travel to commission meetings, legislative session, interim meetings, migration meetings, yada yada...many aren't. Its a wise use of funding to have the hunting and fishing community, as well as State Board members there to testify and help to ensure Sportsmen have a voice.

Would you rather those meetings be dominated by Ag, outfitter, real-estate, business, county commissions, and antihunting organizations? Because I can tell you, all those interests have paid lobbyist's with expense accounts at those meetings. They aren't there to support hunters, anglers, public lands, and wildlife...that's just a fact.

So, you can bitch all you want about the funders and where the funds are spent, but the only way we can effectively advocate for public lands is to spend money getting people in front of the decision makers and having our voice heard.

I wish there was a way around it, but the typical, apathetic hunters arent showing up to meetings...if I can pay minimal travel expenses to get them there, I'll do so and never bat an eye doing so.

Actually, it makes perfect sense if what you want to fund is a distraction so the other groups that you fund can be more effective.

As to the “advocacy”; BHA paid staffers via the ID Chapter FaceBook page when asked why BHA failed to engage on the public lands bill there that had a two vote difference said quite plainly that legislation wasn’t what they do (claimed a lack of staff and bandwidth), and that they only get involved when other groups have done the work and that it is a done deal so BHA can claim credit. That’s on the page, from March of this year.

The claim of taking money from foundations who are opposed to hunting, trapping, and management and then somehow using that money to promote exactly those issues is a non-starter. That’s not how foundation funding works. Grants have to be submitted under program areas that align with the missions of the program and that compliment - not compete with - other grantees under the same program areas. Reports are required by the foundations to show compliance with the foundation guidelines, the program areas, and how they compliment the work of other grantees.

That would line up extremely well with why BHA refused to engage on the push to ban trapping on public lands in several states (including both MT and OR); because those initiatives were run by orgs that share the same funding sources. It would line up extremely well with why BHA has taken no position at all on wolf or grizzly management (definitively a hunting issue, and one that impacts public lands), because the orgs that are opposed to managing those species are funded by the same sources. It lines up perfectly with why BHA refused to get involved in the BC grizzly hunting ban that is now morphing to all bears, cats, wolves, etc.; because the groups that share the same funding sources are the ones behind it. It lines up perfectly with why BHA was the only supposedly “pro-hunting” group that sided with the previous administration’s HSUS/PETA push to remove management authority over several species in AK from the state of AK; because the groups pushing for that shared the same funding sources. It would line up extremely well with why BHA refuses to get involved in the dire need for timber and habitat management on public lands in the East (a direct public lands issue that has huge repercussions to hunters), because the groups that share the same funding sources are the ones adamantly opposed to it. The list could continue for quite some time on these, all aligned rather perfectly with stances the org as a national (or international) org takes or refuses to take.

Instead, as a national org, the focus - as one can see plainly from what the annual report states - is self-promotion and growth; beer bashes and a very well funded and well-coordinated (see those position statements, again) distraction and division within the hunting community.

I was once a BHA KoolAid drinker as well. Then, I put the pint glass down and took the blinders off. There have been, and continue to be, great people who are members of BHA and who individually or even in small groups do great work. The members aren’t the org., and the org is funded by those foundations for specific purposes aligned with the foundation ideologies that are opposed to hunting, trapping, and management.

 

[Ratbeetle]

The nation will go the way of California soon enough, and the lack of predator control will ruin hunting.

The founder of BHA in Colorado was behind the push to stop spring bear hunting. I have been told they don't speak to predator issues now due to being an "access" organization. Hasn't stopped them from addressing this threads topic, but I'm sure that's different.

Interesting, especially seeing as how another member just posted in the CO wolf thread that he received an email from a BHA chapter president stating that BHA is not taking a position on the CO wolf issue.

 

[SDC]

Interesting, especially seeing as how another member just posted in the CO wolf thread that he received an email from a BHA chapter president stating that BHA is not taking a position on the CO wolf issue.

Exactly. But, look at the groups pushing the wolf intro to CO, and you find the same foundations pouring money in. Just like grizzlies in the West, in BC; bear hunting in numerous states; trapping; and on and on. Instead, distract as many hunters from the importance of those fights, divide hunters amongst themselves between those who do see the need to engage on those issues and those who are being distracted, and in doing so the co-funded anti- groups gain an advantage.

There is an old saying that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The converse of that is also true: the friend of my enemy is my enemy. For hunters, trappers, etc., we know that Sierra Club, Defenders, CBD, Klamath-Siskiyou, IFAW, BornFree USA, and many others are our enemies. They share a friend through the foundation funders for their groups with BHA who derives the bulk of their operational funding from the same sources.

 

[vanish]

The founder of BHA in Colorado was behind the push to stop spring bear hunting. I have been told they don't speak to predator issues now due to being an "access" organization. Hasn't stopped them from addressing this threads topic, but I'm sure that's different.

CO BHA submitted a written statement to the CPW Commission against the proposed bobcat hunting/trapping ban.

 

[Okhotnik]

Actually, it makes perfect sense if what you want to fund is a distraction so the other groups that you fund can be more effective.

As to the “advocacy”; BHA paid staffers via the ID Chapter FaceBook page when asked why BHA failed to engage on the public lands bill there that had a two vote difference said quite plainly that legislation wasn’t what they do (claimed a lack of staff and bandwidth), and that they only get involved when other groups have done the work and that it is a done deal so BHA can claim credit. That’s on the page, from March of this year.

The claim of taking money from foundations who are opposed to hunting, trapping, and management and then somehow using that money to promote exactly those issues is a non-starter. That’s not how foundation funding works. Grants have to be submitted under program areas that align with the missions of the program and that compliment - not compete with - other grantees under the same program areas. Reports are required by the foundations to show compliance with the foundation guidelines, the program areas, and how they compliment the work of other grantees.

That would line up extremely well with why BHA refused to engage on the push to ban trapping on public lands in several states (including both MT and OR); because those initiatives were run by orgs that share the same funding sources. It would line up extremely well with why BHA has taken no position at all on wolf or grizzly management (definitively a hunting issue, and one that impacts public lands), because the orgs that are opposed to managing those species are funded by the same sources. It lines up perfectly with why BHA refused to get involved in the BC grizzly hunting ban that is now morphing to all bears, cats, wolves, etc.; because the groups that share the same funding sources are the ones behind it. It lines up perfectly with why BHA was the only supposedly “pro-hunting” group that sided with the previous administration’s HSUS/PETA push to remove management authority over several species in AK from the state of AK; because the groups pushing for that shared the same funding sources. It would line up extremely well with why BHA refuses to get involved in the dire need for timber and habitat management on public lands in the East (a direct public lands issue that has huge repercussions to hunters), because the groups that share the same funding sources are the ones adamantly opposed to it. The list could continue for quite some time on these, all aligned rather perfectly with stances the org as a national (or international) org takes or refuses to take.

Instead, as a national org, the focus - as one can see plainly from what the annual report states - is self-promotion and growth; beer bashes and a very well funded and well-coordinated (see those position statements, again) distraction and division within the hunting community.

I was once a BHA KoolAid drinker as well. Then, I put the pint glass down and took the blinders off. There have been, and continue to be, great people who are members of BHA and who individually or even in small groups do great work. The members aren’t the org., and the org is funded by those foundations for specific purposes aligned with the foundation ideologies that are opposed to hunting, trapping, and management.

Yep

 

[BuzzH]

Actually, it makes perfect sense if what you want to fund is a distraction so the other groups that you fund can be more effective.

As to the “advocacy”; BHA paid staffers via the ID Chapter FaceBook page when asked why BHA failed to engage on the public lands bill there that had a two vote difference said quite plainly that legislation wasn’t what they do (claimed a lack of staff and bandwidth), and that they only get involved when other groups have done the work and that it is a done deal so BHA can claim credit. That’s on the page, from March of this year.

The claim of taking money from foundations who are opposed to hunting, trapping, and management and then somehow using that money to promote exactly those issues is a non-starter. That’s not how foundation funding works. Grants have to be submitted under program areas that align with the missions of the program and that compliment - not compete with - other grantees under the same program areas. Reports are required by the foundations to show compliance with the foundation guidelines, the program areas, and how they compliment the work of other grantees.

That would line up extremely well with why BHA refused to engage on the push to ban trapping on public lands in several states (including both MT and OR); because those initiatives were run by orgs that share the same funding sources. It would line up extremely well with why BHA has taken no position at all on wolf or grizzly management (definitively a hunting issue, and one that impacts public lands), because the orgs that are opposed to managing those species are funded by the same sources. It lines up perfectly with why BHA refused to get involved in the BC grizzly hunting ban that is now morphing to all bears, cats, wolves, etc.; because the groups that share the same funding sources are the ones behind it. It lines up perfectly with why BHA was the only supposedly “pro-hunting” group that sided with the previous administration’s HSUS/PETA push to remove management authority over several species in AK from the state of AK; because the groups pushing for that shared the same funding sources. It would line up extremely well with why BHA refuses to get involved in the dire need for timber and habitat management on public lands in the East (a direct public lands issue that has huge repercussions to hunters), because the groups that share the same funding sources are the ones adamantly opposed to it. The list could continue for quite some time on these, all aligned rather perfectly with stances the org as a national (or international) org takes or refuses to take.

Instead, as a national org, the focus - as one can see plainly from what the annual report states - is self-promotion and growth; beer bashes and a very well funded and well-coordinated (see those position statements, again) distraction and division within the hunting community.

I was once a BHA KoolAid drinker as well. Then, I put the pint glass down and took the blinders off. There have been, and continue to be, great people who are members of BHA and who individually or even in small groups do great work. The members aren’t the org., and the org is funded by those foundations for specific purposes aligned with the foundation ideologies that are opposed to hunting, trapping, and management.

What happens when you post shit that isn't true, as I've pointed out several times that you have done?

Montana BHA opposes I-177

Backcountry Hunters & Anglers is the voice for our wild public lands, waters and wildlife.

www.backcountryhunters.org

Its been pointed out now, that both CO and MT have directly opposed trapping bans in those States. For the record, the attempt in Montana was soundly thumped, in part due to efforts and a campaign by the Montana Chapter.

You've either lied about, or had no idea what you're talking about regarding BHA opposing trapping bans as well as funding access.

You're free to say whatever you want, but you have failed miserably to provide any proof of your claims/lies. Your story, make it as big as you want.

Oh, and Okhotnik, still waiting for the grounds under which a successful lawsuit should be filed regarding the Wyoming Wilderness Guide Law....

 

[SDC]

What happens when you post shit that isn't true, as I've pointed out several times that you have done?

Montana BHA opposes I-177

Backcountry Hunters & Anglers is the voice for our wild public lands, waters and wildlife.

www.backcountryhunters.org

Its been pointed out now, that both CO and MT have directly opposed trapping bans in those States. For the record, the attempt in Montana was soundly thumped, in part due to efforts and a campaign by the Montana Chapter.

You've either lied about, or had no idea what you're talking about regarding BHA opposing trapping bans as well as funding access.

You're free to say whatever you want, but you have failed miserably to provide any proof of your claims. Your story, make it as big as you want.

Buzz, if BHA changed direction on the trapping ban, it was a second push and it was a chapter statement only (not the national org., which again is what I’ve been speaking to). I can tell you for a fact that they did not engage on it early and were not listed as a member of the coalition of orgs that banded together to oppose I-177. In fact, that Oct 14 post shows how late into the I-177 fight BHA claims to have gotten in, which reinforces exactly what the paid staffers state openly - BHA only gets involved once the work is done on legislation and it’s a done deal to claim “victory”.

BREAKING: Sportsmen Defeat Montana’s I-177 - Sportsmen's Alliance

Montana’s Initiative 177 was soundly rejected by voters in the Gem State on the Nov. 8 ballot. The initiative would have banned trapping on the state’s

www.sportsmensalliance.org

I never mentioned CO; I had no knowledge of that one. I did mention OR. That ban was pushed by Klamath-Siskiyou, an org that shared not only funding but also a board member with the OR chapter.

I also did not realize that BHA as an org was funding access. Perhaps because as you illustrate that it’s done by the chapters (not an issue I’ve brought up; only what you keep wanting to focus on because the national level is where the focus has been), and it never showed up as relevant considering a $4M+ org with funding derived from the foundations cited and even you finally said that they are what they are - and as I said they fund what they do via grants based upon those criteria.

You can get as emotionally charged as you want. You can rant and rave and call folks liars as much as you want. That’s what happens when the facts of funding and association through funding with anti- orgs is indisputable. None of that changes what BHA as an org is or does based upon the funding that drives them.

I’ve got no emotional dog in this fight. I used to be just as much of a BHA KoolAid drinker as any other. Then, I started asking questions and looking very closely at things that ought not to have been. I don’t expect to convince you. That doesn’t mean that I do not continue to respect you as a hunter and for the work you do as an individual. Yet, none of that clouds what BHA is as an org and because that is what their funding drives them to be.

 

[Matt Cashell]

Montana BHA opposes I-177

Backcountry Hunters & Anglers is the voice for our wild public lands, waters and wildlife.

www.backcountryhunters.org

I was just going to post this.

This conspiracy is playing some complicated chess moves...

 

[204guy]

The conspiracy theory about BHA does intrigue me. I understand the funding-link concern, but I still don’t see the endgame for how BHA is secretly anti-hunting. What does the springing of the trap look like?

I don't know that there is a trap to spring. It's pretty undeniable though that BHA is BY-FAR and away the most controversial (divisive?) hunting advocacy group out there (SFW aside, plus they're pretty well vetted, not to many defend them anymore). Every single BHA thread on hear turns into a complete dumpster fire of hunters fighting with each other. IF the intent of leadership or funders is to divide and conquer they're being pretty effective. It's been pointed out many times by many people that there seems to be a tremendous disconnect between rank and file members and the national leadership. I fully support the good that Buzz is doing here in WY, it's great. However, in all these back and forth's I can't recall anyone ever posting something and saying look at this great thing they accomplished at the national level. As a former member I'm constantly conflicted, wooed by the good things Buzz is doing instate and pushed away hard by the national leadership.