Do your research before joining "sportsmens conservation" type groups...

[Mike21]

In your attempt to "square the circle", you have just proved the point I have been trying make and contradicted your own. If you are an NRA supporter and contribute money to them, you are directly supporting some of the politicians that are pushing the hardest for state acquisition of federal lands. Some of them would also support privatization of wildlife. I fully realize that, and also realized that I can mitigate that through other means. It doesn't mean that the NRA becomes irrelevant for me, because it serves a role in a political niche.

If you try to make a group of folks that agrees on each of these four points, you won't have a very big group. As a result, they won't have very much political power, nor will they accomplish much of anything that is meaningful.

Those are not political points to me, those are the natural rights of mankind that make us free individuals. Much more valuable than some "political dogma" of any group.

Your thinking small ball here.

 

[dotman]

Nope we shouldn't and I don't see where anyone compromised, the CO politicians forced refs no one wanted including the majority of sheriffs. Obama tried to push the same regs thru and was shot down. Good thing the CO politicians can't control Federal land that is owned by all Americans and the orgs like BHA would stand up for us.

 

[William Hanson (live2hunt)]

In your attempt to "square the circle", you have just proved the point I have been trying make and contradicted your own. If you are an NRA supporter and contribute money to them, you are directly supporting some of the politicians that are pushing the hardest for state acquisition of federal lands. Some of them would also support privatization of wildlife. I fully realize that, and also realized that I can mitigate that through other means. It doesn't mean that the NRA becomes irrelevant for me, because it serves a role in a political niche.

If you try to make a group of folks that agrees on each of these four points, you won't have a very big group. As a result, they won't have very much political power, nor will they accomplish much of anything that is meaningful.

A little off topic and not trying to argue but, why is giving federal lands back to the state a bad thing? I've heard this brought up a few times and but have never really looked into both sides of this argument.

 

[dotman]

So maybe I confuse fact with fiction because when democrats are in power my 2nd amendment rights are always under attack. Ask Colorado gun owners or those fighting the M855 ammo ban if that is an opinion.

With a well documented (not heresay) history of helping the democratic party win elections over republicans I would say that his ties to the democratic party are well documented. Another fact, not opinion.

Facts are pretty stubborn things you know.

Fact - there is no M855 ammo ban, and if it goes any further then a piece of paper from the ATF the courts will tear it up, similar to the sig pistol brace opinion they gave.

The only facts are that CO residents let their politicians bully them.

 

[Matt Cashell]

Ok I will take the bait dammit, one of green decoys arguments was the "Land Tawney worked for the Obama campaign in 2008 under the guise of Montana Sportsmen for Obama". President Obama is the most anti 2nd amend blah blah blah. I have not seen that argument discredited

This is not an argument green decoys is making. This is an ad hominem attack: "Land Tawney is an Obama-supporting lefty Dem so he must be anti-gun and any organization he is affiliated with must be anti-gun!"

The argument made to counter this attack then is that BHA is supported by members of the gun and hunting industry, and so is NOT anti-gun.

Mike,

I will gladly buy you a beer! Western MT is microbrew mecca. PM me next time you are in the area, and I would be glad to meet up with you.

Please call BHA. That sounds like a great source for information about what they are about.

I do hope you join BHA.

 

[Matt Cashell]

A little off topic and not trying to argue but, why is giving federal lands back to the state a bad thing? I've heard this brought up a few times and but have never really looked into both sides of this argument.

l2h,

This thread is convoluted enough to go down that road. You can start your own thread if you are really interested, but there is a lot of information out there already. It is another "dark money" funded push.

 

[dotman]

A little off topic and not trying to argue but, why is giving federal lands back to the state a bad thing? I've heard this brought up a few times and but have never really looked into both sides of this argument.

Because most states do not have the resources. Don't you like knowing there is land that all Americans own and have a say in vs only a few that live in select states that can then decide who can access the land and who cannot.

It isn't the Federal gov that owns land, it is the American people. Also in a select states their residents own land as well know as state land

 

[Mike21]

Fact - there is no M855 ammo ban, and if it goes any further then a piece of paper from the ATF the courts will tear it up, similar to the sig pistol brace opinion they gave.

You do know that the president is the one who appoints supreme court justices dont you? Right now its split 5-4 for gun rights. So the court you have faith in now could very well change if National anti sec amend Presidents are elected..... Obivously another reason to research who you give money to....

 

[jryoung]

A little off topic and not trying to argue but, why is giving federal lands back to the state a bad thing? I've heard this brought up a few times and but have never really looked into both sides of this argument.

Several reasons:
1. States can't afford to manage them unless they manage them for profit. That pushes hunting and fishing to the end of the list of priorities. If they can't afford to manage them, they'll be forced to sell because of budget shortfalls.
2. If in state control, and the serial litigators (CBD, Defenders etc. etc.) continue their litigious ways states will again be forced into sale or similar because of severe management restrictions. There is case in Oregon right now with state lands and timber harvest. The state can't afford to fight the lawsuits.
3. You can't hunt state land in Colorado unless CPW leases hunting access. CPW can't afford to lease all the state land in CO as it currently sits, what would happen with 10 million more acres of state land. In Montana you can only camp on state lands near a trailhead and not more than a few days. How often do you hike in several miles and stay for several days? These are just a few examples, but other states have significant restrictions to hunting on state lands.
4. State politicians are much easier to convince to do stupid things, they're far cheaper to buy. See yoga pants in Montana, or just about any bill that passes through California (coming to a state capitol near you).

These are just a few of the issues to consider when people talk about "state control".

 

[Jason Snyder]

Those are not political points to me, those are the natural rights of mankind that make us free individuals. Much more valuable than some "political dogma" of any group.

Your thinking small ball here.

I must be thinking small ball, because I have no idea what you are trying to say here. What are natural rights of mankind? Are you referring to the US Constitution and Bill of Rights?

 

[Mike21]

I must be thinking small ball, because I have no idea what you are trying to say here. What are natural rights of mankind? Are you referring to the US Constitution and Bill of Rights?

Natural rights of mankind are the ones you are born with, regardless of political system, geography etc. Natural rights are those not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable (i.e., rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws). Its pretty much the basis of a free society, and is referenced many times by the founders of this country. My point being that the four chain links/foundations of hunting: land, weapons, people and animals are natural rights not even in the same league of partisan politics. You suggested compromise on these, I do not share your belief.

I am getting a little philosophical I admit, hence my petty "small ball" comment. But google John Locke who is one of the founders of “liberal” political philosophy, the philosophy of individual rights and limited govern*ment.

 

[Jason Snyder]

You suggested compromise on these, I do not share your belief.

I merely pointed out that every individual circumstance deserves an independent evaluations. There are costs and benefits to everything. Never say never, as one might pass up on opportunity where benefits far outweigh costs, even though it violates one's "principles".

What if the Forest Service swapped 3k acres for a 160 acres parcel that allowed public access to tens of thousands of acres of public land? The negative net gain might shock one's conscience, but the overall gain might far outweigh it. What if drilling was allowed in a wilderness study area of 5k acres in turn for wilderness study designation of 100k acres? Is it worth it? Maybe, maybe not.

However, the political dogma is that one can never ever compromise. Unless you live in a dictatorship where you exercise all of the ruling power, you will never achieve every goal that you desire. Compromise is a key component of ever being able to move forward without political gridlock.

Your natural rights of mankind may sound good, but how many of them are actually protected by the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

 

[Bonedalien]

I will try to get this done tonight!

this thread seems to double every day,but im still interested in your conversation with Land. I am a BHA member,and am interested in what points you personally dont see eye to eye with the BHA. Simply as an open minded guy.I also get how totally swamped you are running the site. If you do get a chance though....

 

[Mike21]

"At the end of the day, these politicians like being elected," MHAA president Land Tawney remarks on an icy January day as he carries his 3-year-old daughter Cidney up a Missoula hiking trail. "If you help get a champion elected or if you beat someone based on their bad record, that's when the true power starts to come."

I wonder if Obama is a champion Land help get elected or if Land was just beating McCain and Romney on their bad record? Another good question to ask. Although I have not found a record of him standing against any democrat, even ones with bad records...

http://www.hcn.org/issues/44.9/secr...n-dive-into-political-fray?b_start:int=0#body. High country news not exactly a " dark money"
source, this is a direct quote, no green decoy boogie men.

This will probably start another shit storm of killing the messenger, but it's info to form your own judgement.

 

[dotman]

"At the end of the day, these politicians like being elected," MHAA president Land Tawney remarks on an icy January day as he carries his 3-year-old daughter Cidney up a Missoula hiking trail. "If you help get a champion elected or if you beat someone based on their bad record, that's when the true power starts to come."

I wonder if Obama is a champion Land help get elected or if Land was just beating McCain and Romney on their bad record? Another good question to ask. Although I have not found a record of him standing against any democrat, even ones with bad records...

http://www.hcn.org/issues/44.9/secr...n-dive-into-political-fray?b_start:int=0#body. High country news not exactly a " dark money"
source, this is a direct quote, no green decoy boogie men.

This will probably start another shit storm of killing the messenger, but it's info to form your own judgement.

So what your sayin is...............,..................... You don't really like Land and are now on a mission to destroy him and the BHA?

 

[hodgeman]

r, but it's info to form your own judgement.

I spent about an hour Sunday morning in a meeting with Land, Ben, and several of the AKBHA guys.

As a conservative, I'm pretty damn sure we could have had a total throw down over all kinds of political things... global warming, guns, Obamacare...the price of crude oil...there's a never ending list of stuff we don't have in common. But, everyone at the table had a couple pretty important things to me in common- we all like big wild critters on big wild land and letting some politician sell off our favorite hunting spot to the highest bidder is the dumbest thing conjured up so far.

In the modern age of polarized politics you better make allies where you can when you can; because the folks coming for YOUR land have got plenty of money and a lot of connections.

 

[Mike21]

So what your sayin is...............,..................... You don't really like Land and are now on a mission to destroy him and the BHA?

You got that from a quote? With some honest questions, sorry, no not at all. I don't have the power or will to try to destroy anyone or any group. Especially a group I probably agree with 80% of things. Lots of different views out their and the BHA leadership has been outspoken and honest about theirs.

I have taken quite a bit of criticism on this post but don't think anyone is trying to destroy me.

 

[dotman]

You got that from a quote? With some honest questions, sorry, no not at all. I don't have the power or will to try to destroy anyone or any group. Especially a group I probably agree with 80% of things. Lots of different views out their and the BHA leadership has been outspoken and honest about theirs.

I have taken quite a bit of criticism on this post but don't think anyone is trying to destroy me.

Haha, was being sarcastic. We all have our views/opinions and they will not always line up.

 

[Murdy]

Natural rights of mankind are the ones you are born with, regardless of political system, geography etc. Natural rights are those not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable (i.e., rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws). Its pretty much the basis of a free society, and is referenced many times by the founders of this country.

To the extent anybody cares:
Second sentence of the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

9th amendment (Bill of Rights), recognizing rights that exist outside of the established system: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

 

[_Nick_]

The organization trying to paint BHA, TRCP, the Izaak Walton League of America, and Trout Unlimited (again, come on, think about that) as being anti-sportsmen is simply full of it. TU has done more for cold-water habitat conservation and restoration than any other group in North America. IWLA has taught generations of hunters and anglers how to fish, to hunt and shoot, and about conservation and ethics. TRCP convenes meetings of other conservation groups and helps them all find middle ground on disparate issues. BHA works for public lands, waters, and wildlife, including access, habitat (see the Clearwater Basin Collaborative for our work with loggers and others), and ethics. Our funding sources are there and open for inspection, and the organization attacking us is, well, not so transparent.

Great post.