Perhaps under the guise of hunting now being a right in the state of WY and not just a recreational endeavor. Per Wyoming's 2012 law that mandated it as a right. It's outfitter subsidy, all it has been, all it ever will be. Be interesting to compare the numbers of hunters rescued from wilderness areas as opposed to hikers, climbers, hippies looking for themselves, etc. Guess you can carry a shotgun and tell them you're hunting grouse, don't need a guide for that. That makes you perfectly safe.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....
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’swww.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.
That case could be pretty convoluted, WY would say it only applies to residents of WY who voted that hunting is a right in WY. However, many states have those laws on the books, most of the SE states in particular have those, so if a NR hunter from one of those states was cited in WY then it would be interesting to hear the argument from both sides. Would certainly be a state's rights argument.
